Thank you for closing my bugzilla account...
Hi, Yesterday, after having manually closed some old fixed bugs, I discussed with infyquest and tlambregts on irc and tlambregts told us that instead of manually closing the bugs, bugzilla had a "change several bugs at once function" It was then discussed that bugs that are FIXED and where resolution is not LATER or DUPLICATE or REMIND should be marked CLOSED as the fixes have been integrated in an official release (namely 0.9). http://bugs.winehq.org/buglist.cgi?query_format=&short_desc_type=allwordssub... FYI the CLOSED status means: The bug is considered dead, the resolution is correct. Any zombie bugs who choose to walk the earth again must do so by becoming REOPENED. Unfortunately bugzilla doesn't allow to close bugs directly from their fixed state so you have to verify them before and thus it will send two mails for each bug closed. I don't think it was possible to turn off change notification at that time (tlambregts even told me that the two spam bugs were normal because of the way bugzilla works) but I cannot verify it as my account has been gently disabled... However it seems that ivanleo didn't like my CLOSING session because some of the bugs were not "fixed". Can someone tell me how a bug can be not fixed and marked as resolved-fixed (see my query) ? The discussion on IRC took place at a time when there were many of you (vitamin, Thunderbird, kbln, infyquest, _Marcus_, tlambregts, cmorgan and so on) and nobody seemed to think it would be a bad idea to close bugs that were fixed before the latest release came out. Thanks for clarifying the situation. -- Jonathan Ernst <Jonathan(a)ErnstFamily.ch>
Hi, Yesterday there was a session indeed but there was misunderstanding regarding the bug status, ie, RESOLVED LATER, RESOLVED CLOSED, VERIFIED, etc. It would be better if we could put some details regarding the bug status on the bugzilla or FAQ pages, as there are some differences in the explanation of these. I am used to a different bug management app (ClearDDTS) where there are only 4-5 states a bug can have.(NEW,ASSIGNED,OPEN,RESOLVED,VERIFIED) Sorry, i caused any misunderstanding. bye, Vijay (infyquest) On 10/27/05, Jonathan Ernst <Jonathan(a)ernstfamily.ch> wrote:
Hi,
Yesterday, after having manually closed some old fixed bugs, I discussed with infyquest and tlambregts on irc and tlambregts told us that instead of manually closing the bugs, bugzilla had a "change several bugs at once function"
It was then discussed that bugs that are FIXED and where resolution is not LATER or DUPLICATE or REMIND should be marked CLOSED as the fixes have been integrated in an official release (namely 0.9).
http://bugs.winehq.org/buglist.cgi?query_format=&short_desc_type=allwordssub...
FYI the CLOSED status means: The bug is considered dead, the resolution is correct. Any zombie bugs who choose to walk the earth again must do so by becoming REOPENED.
Unfortunately bugzilla doesn't allow to close bugs directly from their fixed state so you have to verify them before and thus it will send two mails for each bug closed. I don't think it was possible to turn off change notification at that time (tlambregts even told me that the two spam bugs were normal because of the way bugzilla works) but I cannot verify it as my account has been gently disabled...
However it seems that ivanleo didn't like my CLOSING session because some of the bugs were not "fixed". Can someone tell me how a bug can be not fixed and marked as resolved-fixed (see my query) ?
The discussion on IRC took place at a time when there were many of you (vitamin, Thunderbird, kbln, infyquest, _Marcus_, tlambregts, cmorgan and so on) and nobody seemed to think it would be a bad idea to close bugs that were fixed before the latest release came out.
Thanks for clarifying the situation. -- Jonathan Ernst <Jonathan(a)ErnstFamily.ch>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQBDYJl95uNwURKeRvURAvToAJ4kt7hxC6uhCJtvxmIrCJ/xxRQf5ACfafkp ohopKozYnzevd61g7RHX8WU= =xvNW -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Le jeudi 27 octobre 2005 à 14:56 +0530, Vijay Kiran Kamuju a écrit :
Hi, Yesterday there was a session indeed but there was misunderstanding regarding the bug status, ie, RESOLVED LATER, RESOLVED CLOSED, VERIFIED, etc. It would be better if we could put some details regarding the bug status on the bugzilla or FAQ pages, as there are some differences in the explanation of these. I am used to a different bug management app (ClearDDTS) where there are only 4-5 states a bug can have.(NEW,ASSIGNED,OPEN,RESOLVED,VERIFIED) Sorry, i caused any misunderstanding.
The bug status explanation are on this page: http://bugs.winehq.org/bug_status.html (you can get here by clicking on the "status" link in any bug page). If their meaning is not clear enough, I think the changes you suggest should be made here.
Well i think it should be like this The verified bugs may/not (je ne pas) be re-opened and only resolved bugs can be re-opened. And closed state is equivalent verified state. And Verified state does not have all the sub states like LATER, CLOSED,... bye, Vijay On 10/27/05, Jonathan Ernst <Jonathan(a)ernstfamily.ch> wrote:
Le jeudi 27 octobre 2005 à 14:56 +0530, Vijay Kiran Kamuju a écrit :
Hi, Yesterday there was a session indeed but there was misunderstanding regarding the bug status, ie, RESOLVED LATER, RESOLVED CLOSED, VERIFIED, etc. It would be better if we could put some details regarding the bug status on the bugzilla or FAQ pages, as there are some differences in the explanation of these. I am used to a different bug management app (ClearDDTS) where there are only 4-5 states a bug can have.(NEW,ASSIGNED,OPEN,RESOLVED,VERIFIED) Sorry, i caused any misunderstanding.
The bug status explanation are on this page: http://bugs.winehq.org/bug_status.html (you can get here by clicking on the "status" link in any bug page).
If their meaning is not clear enough, I think the changes you suggest should be made here.
Jonathan Ernst wrote:
Hi,
Yesterday, after having manually closed some old fixed bugs, I discussed with infyquest and tlambregts on irc and tlambregts told us that instead of manually closing the bugs, bugzilla had a "change several bugs at once function"
It was then discussed that bugs that are FIXED and where resolution is not LATER or DUPLICATE or REMIND should be marked CLOSED as the fixes have been integrated in an official release (namely 0.9).
You should still check them manually, by running the program and see if the bug is really fixed, then write something like "I tried this with 0.9 and it's fixed", not just mass close everything. The whole point of verifying bugs is to actually verify they are fixed. Ivan.
From: "Ivan Leo Puoti" <ivanleo(a)gmail.com>
You should still check them manually, by running the program and see if the bug is really fixed, then write something like "I tried this with 0.9 and it's fixed", not just mass close everything. The whole point of verifying bugs is to actually verify they are fixed.
First, it is the responsibility of the reporter to verify the bug. It is totally unrealistic to think that others will go do the verification -- they lack the software, the context, and the motivation/ Second, we had close to a thousand bugs in that state. They do more harm then good lingering about. If the original reporter can not be bothered to verify it, they should be closed. Third, Jonathan has done a lot of good work, and I find it way over the top to remove his Bugzilla account over this issue. Yes, this may have been handled better, etc. but I see no reason for such drastic measures. I don't know who removed his account, but this was done with _way_ less consensus than his actions. Please restore his Bugzilla privileges. -- Dimi Paun <dimi(a)lattica.com> Lattica, Inc.
Le jeudi 27 octobre 2005 à 12:14 -0400, Dimi Paun a écrit :
From: "Ivan Leo Puoti" <ivanleo(a)gmail.com>
You should still check them manually, by running the program and see if the bug is really fixed, then write something like "I tried this with 0.9 and it's fixed", not just mass close everything. The whole point of verifying bugs is to actually verify they are fixed.
First, it is the responsibility of the reporter to verify the bug. It is totally unrealistic to think that others will go do the verification -- they lack the software, the context, and the motivation/
Second, we had close to a thousand bugs in that state. They do more harm then good lingering about. If the original reporter can not be bothered to verify it, they should be closed.
Third, Jonathan has done a lot of good work, and I find it way over the top to remove his Bugzilla account over this issue. Yes, this may have been handled better, etc. but I see no reason for such drastic measures. I don't know who removed his account, but this was done with _way_ less consensus than his actions. Please restore his Bugzilla privileges.
Thanks for your message Dimi. I discussed the issue with Ivan on IRC and he restored my account. The main problem seemed to be that my comment stated: "Closing all bugs that have been fixed before the latest release (wine 0.9). Sorry for the spam (that's how bugzilla works ;-) )." instead of: "Closing all bugs that have been RESOLVED before the latest release (wine 0.9). Sorry for the spam (that's how bugzilla works ;-) )". And Ivan had an abandoned bug that was indeed not fixed. Reading the definition for VERIFIED it seems correct to say a bug is verified even if it was abandoned because verified means that the QA people think the resolution (in this case "ABANDONED") is correct. I hope that now that all these bugs have been closed and that we have a better (at least bigger) QA group we will be able to more accurately confirm, assign, verify and close bugs. Sorry for any annoyance I might have caused, best regards and congratulation for the beta release. -- Jonathan Ernst <Jonathan(a)ErnstFamily.ch>
Dimi Paun wrote:
Third, Jonathan has done a lot of good work, and I find it way over the top to remove his Bugzilla account over this issue.
In fact I didn't, I suspended it til I could get hold of him and we could discuss it and now all is fine and everyone is happy. Peace and love :-) Ivan.
participants (4)
-
Dimi Paun -
Ivan Leo Puoti -
Jonathan Ernst -
Vijay Kiran Kamuju