[mythtv-users] Disk Space Way Wrong

[Raymond Wagner]

On 4/21/2012 15:50, Ronald Frazier wrote:
> You complain because he never submitted a bug report.

Correct.  If he's going to go off telling people their issues are caused 
by old known bugs, he needs to post a ticket so that we actually know 
its a bug.

> If he had submitted a bug, you make it clear that it's not a
> bug but a feature request.

That's really up to the discretion of the person doing triage.  If it's 
a behavior we don't want MythTV to have, or use of MythTV in some manner 
it is not supposed to operate, it would be closed Invalid or Won't Fix.  
If it's a behavior we could see useful in MythTV, but outside the scope 
of the existing programming, it would be closed as a Feature Request 
Without Patch, or left open if patch was included.  If it's something 
MythTV is supposed to do, but is not doing it, it's a valid bug.

> However, if he had submitted the feature request with patch,
> you would still shoot it down because you think myth should
> purposely ignore symlinks because it's not a valid configuration.

In this case, he actually did provide a patch.  However, for the 
specific case of definition of recording storage, I don't see any 
utility in being able to define it using symlinks.  Consider recordings 
as MythTV's own internal data, and all access to it must be done by 
MythTV's rules.  Doing otherwise would be like writing something that 
directly tinkered with the binary files of a MySQL database.  Sure you 
can do it, but MySQL isn't going to support you doing so, or be 
responsible if something goes wrong.  If you're not supposed to be doing 
it in the first place, why support a configuration that only serves to 
aid such actions?

With things like videos, music, and artwork switching over to access 
through storage groups, these are things that actually do make sense for 
external access.  If MythTV gains the ability to shuffle such content 
around, and more specifically to shuffle it around to balance free space 
between multiple partitions, this behavior will have to be revisited, 
and at least within the context of non-recorded content, would become a 
proper bug.

> So tell me, what COULD mark have done that would have pleased you?

If he comes across something he thinks is a bug, spend 30 seconds and 
put a ticket up on Trac.  He already spent enough time to figure out it 
was his use of symlinks that caused it, which is plenty to figure out 
where the problem lies.  If there's not enough information to root out 
or otherwise verify the issue, it gets marked as Info Needed, and closed 
six weeks later if no response is given.  He, or anyone else, could 
respond to give enough information to properly describe it and keep the 
ticket alive.  At such point as the ticket is closed as invalid due to 
an unsupported configuration, stop calling it a bug.  It's not a bug, 
it's an unsupported configuration that when used, is known to cause at 
least <whatever> incorrect behavior.