Bug tracker - forum connection?

I just posted a bug in the bug tracker¹. But I imagine most regulars here read the forum and not the bug tracker, so I wonder if I’m talking to thin air. How about some kind of way that activity on the tracker is reflected on the forum? That could be a thread with status updates from bugs or even a thread per bug (not sure that’s a good idea, just mirrors the bug tracker).

There’s already the tracker RSS feed – any way of turning that into a forum thread perhaps? It’s not as if it’s overly busy at the moment.

¹ #361 Current boot sequence broken on RISC OS 3 machines due to missing SharedCLibrary

I wonder if I’m talking to thin air

I check the tracker roughly once a fortnight, but the drive to shortlist those that need fixing doesn’t happen until a few months before a stable release cycle. Even then, some that would have been good to fix get dropped due to lack of willing keyboard fairies (or time) to investigate.

Current boot sequence broken on RISC OS 3 machines due to missing SharedCLibrary

That’s not a fault: you need to merge the !System archive with the HardDisc4 archive, the clue’s in the text “for use with pre-RISC OS 5 machines” next to the download. I’ll be rejecting that ticket in just a few seconds…

Do you look at all the bugs, or just the open ones? If I post a followup to a closed ticket, will anyone see it (without doing a specific search for it, or reassigning the status)?

Some kind of notifications would be useful – if only so people can say ‘I have that too’ or ‘works for me’. If people don’t know about bugs they can’t fix them!

That’s not a fault: you need to merge the !System archive with the HardDisc4 archive, the clue’s in the text “for use with pre-RISC OS 5 machines” next to the download. I’ll be rejecting that ticket in just a few seconds…

Perhaps the !System archive could be moved into the ‘Disc based components’ section from ‘Ancillary downloads’ so it’s clear that it’s a necessary part of the disc image for those machines? Since !System is a ‘disc based component’ and I’d expect to grab everything I need from that section.

I do agree that we need to work on ways to make that whole process more clear / obvious, even from just the downloads page. It’s all very well us scattering documentation around different places describing processes, but that’s not much help to people coming here “from outside” and heading straight to downloads without knowledge of the existence or location of other documentation.

I do agree that we need to work on ways to make that whole process more clear / obvious,

Programmers are not, in general, good at writing documentation. Most of what is needed is obvious to them, after all. I have offered help but ROOL are took busy to decide what they want. This is not a good position.

There is an essential minimum of time that should be set aside to invest in bringing other people in and getting them up to speed as that will release more time once it works.