February 2014 - Wine-Devel - list.winehq.org

Re: Rename "Version" field to "Earliest Affected Version" in Bugzilla?

by Dmitry Timoshkov

Jerome Leclanche <adys.wh(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> I haven't been subscribed to the bug emails for long, but it seems there's an ongoing problem with users updating the Version field to the _newest_ affected version when we want it to indicate the _earliest_ affected version. Sorry if this is the sort of thing which has been discussed and dismissed before, but it seems the problem could be reduced by renaming the field. > >> > > >> > Now they are going to think that they are supposed to set the version > >> > to Wine 1.0 or even 0.9, right? :) > >> > >> Probably. :) There's a reason why I said "reduced" and not "eliminated" in the above. People will always be people. > > > > In reality Wine version should be set to the one that user had used > > at the time it experianced the problem he/she were reporting. That's > > neither earliest nor the latest one, it's the one used at the bug > > reporting time. > > > > -- > > Dmitry. > > > > > > What is the reasoning behind that, really? What is the point of having > a version field that tells the developers absolutely nothing? One need to be a developer to comment on this I'd guess, but telling an exact used Wine version in the bug report is already a very good start. > As it stands the version field is only useful for a split second at > report time to tell users "The version you're using is too old". This > could be automated with a bit of javascript and prevent unnecessary > reports. Reports for too old versions could be avoided by not listing old versions at all, and telling a user that if he/she can't find his/her version in the list to upgrade. -- Dmitry.

Feb. 10, 2014

Re: Rename "Version" field to "Earliest Affected Version" in Bugzilla?

by Jerome Leclanche

On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 1:43 AM, Dmitry Timoshkov <dmitry(a)baikal.ru> wrote: > Ken Thomases <ken(a)codeweavers.com> wrote: > >> >> I haven't been subscribed to the bug emails for long, but it seems there's an ongoing problem with users updating the Version field to the _newest_ affected version when we want it to indicate the _earliest_ affected version. Sorry if this is the sort of thing which has been discussed and dismissed before, but it seems the problem could be reduced by renaming the field. >> > >> > Now they are going to think that they are supposed to set the version >> > to Wine 1.0 or even 0.9, right? :) >> >> Probably. :) There's a reason why I said "reduced" and not "eliminated" in the above. People will always be people. > > In reality Wine version should be set to the one that user had used > at the time it experianced the problem he/she were reporting. That's > neither earliest nor the latest one, it's the one used at the bug > reporting time. > > -- > Dmitry. > > What is the reasoning behind that, really? What is the point of having a version field that tells the developers absolutely nothing? As it stands the version field is only useful for a split second at report time to tell users "The version you're using is too old". This could be automated with a bit of javascript and prevent unnecessary reports. J. Leclanche

Feb. 10, 2014

Re: Rename "Version" field to "Earliest Affected Version" in Bugzilla?

by Rosanne DiMesio

On Sun, 9 Feb 2014 18:14:35 -0800 > > Well, if that's the consensus that develops, then perhaps we could > either: a) rename it to Originally Reported Version, or b) disable editing > that field by non-admin users. (We might also disable non-admin users from > setting or editing the Severity field, too.) > > I'd vote for b). Me, too. Especially the part about disabling setting the Severity field for non-admin users--that's an even worse problem than the Version field. -- Rosanne DiMesio <dimesio(a)earthlink.net>

Feb. 9, 2014

Re: Rename "Version" field to "Earliest Affected Version" in Bugzilla?

by Austin English

On Feb 9, 2014 6:11 PM, "Ken Thomases" <ken(a)codeweavers.com> wrote: > > On Feb 9, 2014, at 8:00 PM, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote: > > > Version field should be never changed and left at the original version > > that the user had reported the problem for. There is no point in changing > > it to an earlier or a later one IMHO. > > Well, if that's the consensus that develops, then perhaps we could either: a) rename it to Originally Reported Version, or b) disable editing that field by non-admin users. (We might also disable non-admin users from setting or editing the Severity field, too.) I'd vote for b).

Feb. 9, 2014

Re: Rename "Version" field to "Earliest Affected Version" in Bugzilla?

by Ken Thomases

On Feb 9, 2014, at 8:00 PM, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote: > Version field should be never changed and left at the original version > that the user had reported the problem for. There is no point in changing > it to an earlier or a later one IMHO. Well, if that's the consensus that develops, then perhaps we could either: a) rename it to Originally Reported Version, or b) disable editing that field by non-admin users. (We might also disable non-admin users from setting or editing the Severity field, too.) -Ken

Feb. 9, 2014

Re: Rename "Version" field to "Earliest Affected Version" in Bugzilla?

by Dmitry Timoshkov

Ken Thomases <ken(a)codeweavers.com> wrote: > >>>> I haven't been subscribed to the bug emails for long, but it seems there's an ongoing problem with users updating the Version field to the _newest_ affected version when we want it to indicate the _earliest_ affected version. Sorry if this is the sort of thing which has been discussed and dismissed before, but it seems the problem could be reduced by renaming the field. > >>> > >>> Now they are going to think that they are supposed to set the version > >>> to Wine 1.0 or even 0.9, right? :) > >> > >> Probably. :) There's a reason why I said "reduced" and not "eliminated" in the above. People will always be people. > > > > In reality Wine version should be set to the one that user had used > > at the time it experianced the problem he/she were reporting. That's > > neither earliest nor the latest one, it's the one used at the bug > > reporting time. > > The problem is that users retest with new releases of Wine and then update the Version field when they shouldn't. The desired behavior is for them to leave it at the earliest one where they found the problem. And if somebody happens to test an earlier version and finds that the bug existed back then, they should update the Version field to show that earlier version. Or, at least, that's what I've seen experienced bug wranglers do. Version field should be never changed and left at the original version that the user had reported the problem for. There is no point in changing it to an earlier or a later one IMHO. -- Dmitry.

Feb. 9, 2014

Re: Rename "Version" field to "Earliest Affected Version" in Bugzilla?

by Ken Thomases

On Feb 9, 2014, at 7:43 PM, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote: > Ken Thomases <ken(a)codeweavers.com> wrote: > >>>> I haven't been subscribed to the bug emails for long, but it seems there's an ongoing problem with users updating the Version field to the _newest_ affected version when we want it to indicate the _earliest_ affected version. Sorry if this is the sort of thing which has been discussed and dismissed before, but it seems the problem could be reduced by renaming the field. >>> >>> Now they are going to think that they are supposed to set the version >>> to Wine 1.0 or even 0.9, right? :) >> >> Probably. :) There's a reason why I said "reduced" and not "eliminated" in the above. People will always be people. > > In reality Wine version should be set to the one that user had used > at the time it experianced the problem he/she were reporting. That's > neither earliest nor the latest one, it's the one used at the bug > reporting time. The problem is that users retest with new releases of Wine and then update the Version field when they shouldn't. The desired behavior is for them to leave it at the earliest one where they found the problem. And if somebody happens to test an earlier version and finds that the bug existed back then, they should update the Version field to show that earlier version. Or, at least, that's what I've seen experienced bug wranglers do. -Ken

Feb. 9, 2014

Re: Rename "Version" field to "Earliest Affected Version" in Bugzilla?

by Dmitry Timoshkov

Ken Thomases <ken(a)codeweavers.com> wrote: > >> I haven't been subscribed to the bug emails for long, but it seems there's an ongoing problem with users updating the Version field to the _newest_ affected version when we want it to indicate the _earliest_ affected version. Sorry if this is the sort of thing which has been discussed and dismissed before, but it seems the problem could be reduced by renaming the field. > > > > Now they are going to think that they are supposed to set the version > > to Wine 1.0 or even 0.9, right? :) > > Probably. :) There's a reason why I said "reduced" and not "eliminated" in the above. People will always be people. In reality Wine version should be set to the one that user had used at the time it experianced the problem he/she were reporting. That's neither earliest nor the latest one, it's the one used at the bug reporting time. -- Dmitry.

Feb. 9, 2014

Re: Rename "Version" field to "Earliest Affected Version" in Bugzilla?

by Ken Thomases

On Feb 9, 2014, at 7:27 PM, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote: > Ken Thomases <ken(a)codeweavers.com> wrote: > >> I haven't been subscribed to the bug emails for long, but it seems there's an ongoing problem with users updating the Version field to the _newest_ affected version when we want it to indicate the _earliest_ affected version. Sorry if this is the sort of thing which has been discussed and dismissed before, but it seems the problem could be reduced by renaming the field. > > Now they are going to think that they are supposed to set the version > to Wine 1.0 or even 0.9, right? :) Probably. :) There's a reason why I said "reduced" and not "eliminated" in the above. People will always be people. -Ken

Feb. 9, 2014

Re: Rename "Version" field to "Earliest Affected Version" in Bugzilla?

by Dmitry Timoshkov

Ken Thomases <ken(a)codeweavers.com> wrote: > I haven't been subscribed to the bug emails for long, but it seems there's an ongoing problem with users updating the Version field to the _newest_ affected version when we want it to indicate the _earliest_ affected version. Sorry if this is the sort of thing which has been discussed and dismissed before, but it seems the problem could be reduced by renaming the field. Now they are going to think that they are supposed to set the version to Wine 1.0 or even 0.9, right? :) -- Dmitry.

Feb. 9, 2014