http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=60241 --- Comment #29 from Alexandre Julliard <julliard@winehq.org> --- (In reply to Olivier F. R. Dierick from comment #23)
(In reply to Alexandre Julliard from comment #21)
Olivier, please stop messing with this bug, it's fine as it is. Please just move on.
Hello,
Your fascination for AI is altering your judgment and it confuses you.
I have no love for AI, but I'm still able to recognize that this report is useful.
For as long as I've been contributing here, I have been always told that Bugzilla was not a place for user help or philosophical debate (although some senior developers tends to ignore that when they see fit), that there were policies and that bug triagers were tasked to enforce them and make sure that the bug conformed to them so that it was easier for developers to pick issues to work on.
Exactly, the goal is to make the work easier for developers. Here, developers have told you that this bug is useful, and that it is the right way to handle that sort of report. You should listen to them, instead of insisting on blindly applying rules that will make it harder to fix the bugs.
Now you're going against that, you suddenly have expectations disjointed from reality (Bugzilla is not your free customer support, we are volunteers that do not work for you and don't have to follow a "nice and welcoming to the users" code of conduct when triaging bugs, if you want that put an AI chatbox on the main page to redirect users to the appropriate places, I'm sure AI will always be nice and welcoming) and you're going to fight with the people that are contributing to the project. Why? because you're hurt by the rejection of a bug related to an AI report?
No, because I think this report is useful and will enable us to fix bugs, which is supposed to be the goal of a bug tracker. And BTW if you want to participate in the project, you absolutely have to follow our code of conduct, volunteer or not. If you can't do that you will be banned.
I'm not responsible for the bug being changed to an enhancement request, but my understanding of the discussion is that the enhancement request is about integrating AI tool/code smeller in the development workflow. The enhancement request is not about adding AI tool/code smeller into the WINE code (I refer to the comments from Stian Low for that). So it seems logical to me to maintain coherence in the bug database that the product field is changed to gitlab. Now explain to me how triaging the bug according to the other people concensus is wrong. Isn't it just because you took a gripe against me?
I don't have any gripe against you. This bug has clearly nothing to do with Gitlab, it's a list of bugs found in the Wine code. The consensus of developers is that this bug is useful. Just accept that and let us work on fixing the issues. If you want to file a bug against Gitlab that there should be some mechanism to generate AI reports, go right ahead. But it's a different bug.
If someone interested picks up an issue from the AI report, how are we going do deal with that? Should we direct the person to file a separate bug report or to comment on this bug? Because we'll need a way to track when one of the 1900 issues is worked on/fixed, don't you think?
No, not really. Most of the issues are trivial and people can just submit fixes without an associated bug. Nikolay fixed quite a few of them already.
How will we have to deal with other code reviews from the same/different AI. Should we mark the reports duplicate of this one, or will they be tracked independently? Because if we accept one AI report, we'll soon get others, don't you think?
If the OP updates the report, it can be attached to this bug. If there are other reports of the same type they can have their own bug. I don't see any problem with that.
How are we going to disambiguate the duplicate issues in various code reviews? Should we not list the 1900 issues to identify them?
No, there's no need to track every single code typo in a separate bug.
How are we going to deal with the bug when several wine releases have passed and the AI code review is no longer current? Someone have to ask Claude for a renewed code review, don't you think?
Then how are we going to reproduce the code review? We'll need to know how the code review was produced. Does it use a prompt, or an interface with parameters? Then which prompt or parameters were used to produce this code review? We should ask the OP the step to reproduce the report, don't you think?
We can ask the OP to generate a new report. If someone else is interested in doing this, they can reach out to the OP and ask how to achieve the same results. If no one updates the report and it becomes stale and no longer useful, we can then close the bug. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.