Suggestion on auto ticket filing

[Bradley Giesbrecht]

On Dec 1, 2009, at 3:13 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:

> On Dec 1, 2009, at 16:57, Scott Haneda wrote:
>
>> On Dec 1, 2009, at 2:38 PM, Jeremy Lavergne wrote:
>>
>>>> Can you tell me more about the gsoc project wrt MacPorts?  Where  
>>>> do I find the log?  I can force a portfile to fail, or look at  
>>>> some others that have, where do I find those logs?
>>>
>>> It's in the trunk version: when there's an error it'll report  
>>> where it put the log.
>>
>> Any eta on when this hits the general users hands?
>
> It will be in MacPorts 1.9.0, for which there is no ETA.
>
> I think we can do a smaller 1.8.2 release before then, for which  
> there is also no ETA, but IMHO it could occur this month. We already  
> have a few things added to the 1.8 branch beyond what was released  
> in 1.8.1, and several more small fixes that could be merged from  
> trunk as well.
>
>
>>>>> From what I can gather, your comments below are speaking towards  
>>>>> 100% automated ticket submissions on port install error?  Or are  
>>>>> you saying, that after a failed install, and some general  
>>>>> guidance to a wiki/troubleshooting page, that the steps the user  
>>>>> take would auto submit a new trac ticket, which in turn, a  
>>>>> script could fish out some details and make the ticket more  
>>>>> relevant?
>>>
>>> The ticketing process is currently not automated, but my ideas  
>>> were geared toward the creation of such a system.  I feel most of  
>>> the information can be gleaned from the server's database and port  
>>> can fire up a terminal window with a specific URL to trigger an  
>>> auto-population of the form (e.g., `openhttp://trac.macports.org/...port=...mpversion=1.8.99 
>>> ...`).
>>
>> Ok, cool, we are on the exact same page, that was my thinking as  
>> well.
>
> Before we talk about technically how to auto-submit tickets, we  
> should make sure that's what we want. Personally, I think the user  
> needs to have some say in whether a ticket gets filed. Not every  
> error MacPorts prints means there is a bug. For example, a checksum  
> error may indicate a problem with the user's network. A build  
> failure might occur if the user did not install dependencies with  
> the right architecture (or perhaps did not follow the Migration  
> procedure when upgrading to Snow Leopard). And what about  
> duplicates? We don't want 100 users (or even 2 users) filing tickets  
> for the same problem. We want users to locate existing issues in the  
> issue tracker and only file a new ticket if their issue is not  
> already covered.

Is it safe to say we wouldn't want local repo submissions?

// Brad