http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=60241 --- Comment #23 from Olivier F. R. Dierick <o.dierick@piezo-forte.be> --- (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. 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. 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? 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? Note that I initially considered replying to Stian Low that bugzilla was not a place for discussion and that it should be directed at the developers mailing list, but after your interventions I guess that would have made me "too strict" and not "nice and welcoming", so I'll let you be the one that tells me to stop. And last, I will ask you to clarify several points, so that the triaging of this bug has clear and well defined instructions: 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? 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? How are we going to disambiguate the duplicate issues in various code reviews? Should we not list the 1900 issues to identify them? 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? Regards. -- 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.