[ZWeb] Zope Collector policies?

[Andreas Jung]

--On 11. April 2006 23:00:01 +0200 Clemens Klein-Robbenhaar 
<crobbenhaar at web.de> wrote:

> Hi,
>
>   I feel there is a mismatch between the policies for the Zope collectors
> and
> the text on the entry page of these collectors, which seems to frustrate
> both
> users and the developers caring about the collectors.

I agree.

> are welcome; instead there seems to be a strict policy about submissions
> requiring:
>
>   - patches must come with unit test proving the patch fixes some issue

"should come": untested code is basically broken (to cite Stefan Holek).
In addition a patch is more likely to be accepted by a supporter if is has 
tests.

>   - patches for new features must apply to the trunk

nothing to add, this is a common rule for Zope 2 and Zope 3

>   - bug reports should at least include the traceback

nothing to add, asking a bunch of times back get the necessary information
to get even a clue about a problem is one the most of annoying thing when 
dealing with bugreports

>   - only supported combinations of python/zope are supported, and issues
>     should be reproduceable with a stock Zope installation without add-ons
>   ...

Bascially yes, but we also have an eye on the major frameworks like CMF & 
Plone.

>
> All users violating the policy are told about their mistake very strictly
> by Andreas Jung then. However, none of these requirements are mentioned
> on the start page for the collector.

..basically because the collector is often misunderstood as discussion 
board and helpdesk.

>
>   Other projects do have such requirements stated in big letters on their
> bug trackers front page; these might even include to ask first on the
> relevant
> mailing list before reporting a bug.
>   I think its better to tell people in advance that to have to tell them
> later
> that their bug report does not meet the checklist.

Nothing against a false bugreport as long as it is clear, understandable 
and reasonable. But weird and incomplete bug reports have the best chance 
to be ignored and rejected.

>
>   Does anyone share my point of view the collector overview page should
> state
> the requirements explicitely? If yes, is there any interest that I try to
> formulate some alternative text for the front page (which would need to be
> polished by some native speaker)?

I would definitely appreciate that.


>
> P.S. apologies if I am on the wrong list - if so, has anyone pointers
> about a better
>   place to post this?

zope-dev would have been better.

Andreas


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-web/attachments/20060412/306ceb1a/attachment.bin