Page MenuHomeFreeBSD

15.0/errata: Begin listing open regressions
ClosedPublic

Authored by ziaee on Mon, Jan 5, 4:00 AM.
Tags
None
Referenced Files
F141805029: D54512.id169037.diff
Sat, Jan 10, 4:12 PM
F141805027: D54512.id169037.diff
Sat, Jan 10, 4:12 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Sat, Jan 10, 5:13 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Sat, Jan 10, 5:02 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Sat, Jan 10, 4:28 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Fri, Jan 9, 7:39 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Thu, Jan 8, 9:06 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Thu, Jan 8, 6:29 PM
Subscribers

Details

Summary
  • throws something up to start discussion **

Note: this is 34 days late really
Discussed with: adrian, imp, jhb, ngie

Test Plan

pkg ins docproj
cd /usr/doc
git arc patch -c D54512
make clean website
$BROWSER website/public/releases/15.0R/errata/index.html

  1. think thoughtfully

Diff Detail

Repository
R9 FreeBSD doc repository
Lint
Lint Not Applicable
Unit
Tests Not Applicable

Event Timeline

ziaee requested review of this revision.Mon, Jan 5, 4:00 AM
ziaee created this revision.

Here's how this is rendering with w3m:

20260104_225821.jpg (2×4 px, 5 MB)

website/content/en/releases/15.0R/errata.adoc
63–74
  • The numbering was off.
  • The lib archive issue in bugs.freebsd.org/291405 doesn't affect 15.0-RELEASE .
website/content/en/releases/15.0R/errata.adoc
63–74
  • The numbering was off.
  • The lib archive issue in bugs.freebsd.org/291405 doesn't affect 15.0-RELEASE .

I would also change:

**State**: works as intended, that was an experimental preview +

to:

**State**: works as intended: pkgbase[7] on 14.3 was an experimental preview. +

fix numbering and remove misidentified issue, thanks @ngie!

BTW, isn't the proposed change what Errata Notes sort of do...?

BTW, isn't the proposed change what Errata Notes sort of do...?

Oh, derp. Yeah, that's what this is. I just usually see emails in text form and not this portion of the sausage making process.

Seems reasonable, but that's pretty lame feedback.
Technically, the issues are likely good, though the "don't do that" likely needs better wording.

polish a bit more, thanks @ngie and @imp!

ziaee edited the test plan for this revision. (Show Details)

I scrolled back several releases to see what our prior "Open Issues" sections look like.

It appears that 12.0-RELEASE was the last release to have been updated with Open Issues. Comparing this change to the 12.0-RELEASE notes, the format's different. I'm not sure if it's better or worse because I haven't seen the actual rendered forms with a non-text browser.

One thing that is different that's nice (depending on how it's rendered) is the URLs are fully listed. That said, as long as the links are clickable/redirect, I'm ok with the proposed change.

website/content/en/releases/15.0R/errata.adoc
65

Do we want to have the current Bugzilla bug state listed on this page, i.e., is there value in having that over just mentioning the issue given that this page will likely lag behind the bug fix?

ziaee edited the test plan for this revision. (Show Details)

it's a bit terse, but i think it's fine!

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Mon, Jan 5, 5:59 AM
ziaee marked 2 inline comments as done.Mon, Jan 5, 6:04 AM
ziaee added inline comments.
website/content/en/releases/15.0R/errata.adoc
65

I do not know, I did that because the matrix of {has bug} to {fix expected} was all over the place.

website/content/en/releases/15.0R/errata.adoc
65

my reading is that as of 15.0 it's "open". Yeah it can be closed later, but that's not relevant for someone installing 15.0. It'll hopefully be relevant and updated in 15.1 :-)