Trying to get a grip on how to handle bug reports.
Hi folks, I seem to have done something wrong referring a user to a closed bug report that seemed to be related to the problem he was having. (See bug 11639 for more context) So in order to avoid me being the cause a user defiles the holy status of a closed bug, I'd like to have some clear rules on how to handle related bug reports. And you folks wonder why we don't have a healthy user community. Sometimes I feel like talking to a brick wall. Kai -- Kai Blin WorldForge developer http://www.worldforge.org/ Wine developer http://wiki.winehq.org/KaiBlin Samba team member http://www.samba.org/samba/team/ -- Will code for cotton.
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Kai Blin <kai.blin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
I seem to have done something wrong referring a user to a closed bug report that seemed to be related to the problem he was having. (See bug 11639 for more context)
So in order to avoid me being the cause a user defiles the holy status of a closed bug, I'd like to have some clear rules on how to handle related bug reports.
It's actually a lot simpler than that. While we don't want users filing duplicate bug reports, a bug can't be a duplicate of another bug that is already fixed. The right thing to do would be to tell that user to file a new bug report, referring to the closed bug report if he really feels like it. Sure they very well maybe be related, but the fact remains that one bug is fixed, while another bug is not fixed. Thus, they're not the same bug. By the way, if you really want to help this situation, I don't recommend the sarcasm.
And you folks wonder why we don't have a healthy user community. Sometimes I feel like talking to a brick wall.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11639#c16 http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11639#c18 Those are links to my comments for the bug report in question. The user was told to file a new bug report. Once the user kept commenting in the closed bug report (and not filing a new bug report), I told him to stop posting in a closed bug. Since when is this not standard? -- James Hawkins
James Hawkins wrote:
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Kai Blin <kai.blin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
I seem to have done something wrong referring a user to a closed bug report that seemed to be related to the problem he was having. (See bug 11639 for more context)
So in order to avoid me being the cause a user defiles the holy status of a closed bug, I'd like to have some clear rules on how to handle related bug reports.
It's actually a lot simpler than that. While we don't want users filing duplicate bug reports, a bug can't be a duplicate of another bug that is already fixed. The right thing to do would be to tell that user to file a new bug report, referring to the closed bug report if he really feels like it. Sure they very well maybe be related, but the fact remains that one bug is fixed, while another bug is not fixed. Thus, they're not the same bug. By the way, if you really want to help this situation, I don't recommend the sarcasm.
And you folks wonder why we don't have a healthy user community. Sometimes I feel like talking to a brick wall.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11639#c16 http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11639#c18
Those are links to my comments for the bug report in question. The user was told to file a new bug report. Once the user kept commenting in the closed bug report (and not filing a new bug report), I told him to stop posting in a closed bug. Since when is this not standard?
I think bugzilla operators are a bit too trigger happy lately, in particular with abandoning bugs. For example: http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12437 "The tests aren't time consuming, but if you choose to not do the tests, we'll have to close this bug as abandoned." And there's a link mentioned in comments to downloadable trial that can (reportedly) be used to reproduce. Sure, the user should've filled the URL field. But, it's pointless to expect users to 1) do everything right 2) follow their bugs indefinitely (sometimes for years). 3) always be willing to do time consuming and otherwise demanding operations like regression test. If a user submitted enough info to make it possible for developer to reproduce or otherwise make sense of a bug, he has already done a commendable job. IMHO care should be taken not to "abandon" bugs without good reason, such as bug description that makes no sense, absence of any useful logs and obscure app for which no download can be googled and user not responding for a long period of time.
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 2:01 PM, Alexander Dorofeyev <alexd4(a)inbox.lv> wrote:
James Hawkins wrote:
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Kai Blin <kai.blin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
I seem to have done something wrong referring a user to a closed bug report that seemed to be related to the problem he was having. (See bug 11639 for more context)
So in order to avoid me being the cause a user defiles the holy status of a closed bug, I'd like to have some clear rules on how to handle related bug reports.
It's actually a lot simpler than that. While we don't want users filing duplicate bug reports, a bug can't be a duplicate of another bug that is already fixed. The right thing to do would be to tell that user to file a new bug report, referring to the closed bug report if he really feels like it. Sure they very well maybe be related, but the fact remains that one bug is fixed, while another bug is not fixed. Thus, they're not the same bug. By the way, if you really want to help this situation, I don't recommend the sarcasm.
And you folks wonder why we don't have a healthy user community. Sometimes I feel like talking to a brick wall.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11639#c16 http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11639#c18
Those are links to my comments for the bug report in question. The user was told to file a new bug report. Once the user kept commenting in the closed bug report (and not filing a new bug report), I told him to stop posting in a closed bug. Since when is this not standard?
I think bugzilla operators are a bit too trigger happy lately, in particular with abandoning bugs. For example: http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12437
"The tests aren't time consuming, but if you choose to not do the tests, we'll have to close this bug as abandoned."
Can we all stop with the sensationalist comments? Seriously. If you'll actually read what I said, I made no threats, nor was I rude. I also didn't change the resolution of the bug, so where's the trigger-pulling you refer to? The only mistake I made, which was a mistake on the part of everyone triaging this bug, was that I didn't know the bug was freely reproducible. That's the worst I did, and that's not a big deal, and certainly not worth your reply.
And there's a link mentioned in comments to downloadable trial that can (reportedly) be used to reproduce. Sure, the user should've filled the URL field. But, it's pointless to expect users to 1) do everything right 2) follow their bugs indefinitely (sometimes for years). 3) always be willing to do time consuming and otherwise demanding operations like regression test.
On behalf of the regular bugzilla moderators (of which there are very few), I'll go over the policy we have in place to keep, or strive to attain, a manageable bugzilla database. There are only a few conditions that warrant abandoning a bug: a) the bug must not be freely reproducible b) the reporter has not responded to a request for more information in at least 3 months, or c) the reporter will not or can not provide the information requested, usually not doing the regression testing If you have a problem with any of these policies, bring it up in wine-devel, but don't single me out. We devote so much of our free time to keep our bugzilla manageable, and a big part of that is weeding out bugs which we can do nothing about (abandoned).
If a user submitted enough info to make it possible for developer to reproduce or otherwise make sense of a bug, he has already done a commendable job. IMHO care should be taken not to "abandon" bugs without good reason, such as bug description that makes no sense, absence of any useful logs and obscure app for which no download can be googled and user not responding for a long period of time.
Besides the reproducible part of this last paragraph, you're describing an invalid bug, not abandoned. -- James Hawkins
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 02:28:15PM -0500, James Hawkins wrote:
On behalf of the regular bugzilla moderators (of which there are very few), I'll go over the policy we have in place to keep, or strive to attain, a manageable bugzilla database. There are only a few conditions that warrant abandoning a bug:
a) the bug must not be freely reproducible b) the reporter has not responded to a request for more information in at least 3 months, or c) the reporter will not or can not provide the information requested, usually not doing the regression testing
We should probably have such information on the wiki. please :) Jan
participants (4)
-
Alexander Dorofeyev -
James Hawkins -
Jan Zerebecki -
Kai Blin