Maybe add a resolution of NEEDMOREINFO?
There is no need to add one more reason for a bug resolution IMHO, INVALID with appropriate comment does the job.
INVALID seems harsh, it may scare away novice reporters.
Do we want to make it easy to search for bugs stuck in a needmoreinfo kind of state? If so, a keyword or state might be handy.
Does anybody remember good old gnu gnats, the old bug tracking system? It was great this way; it had an explicit notion of whose ball the court was in. I miss that. - Dan
Dan Kegel wrote:
Maybe add a resolution of NEEDMOREINFO?
There is no need to add one more reason for a bug resolution IMHO, INVALID with appropriate comment does the job.
INVALID seems harsh, it may scare away novice reporters.
Do we want to make it easy to search for bugs stuck in a needmoreinfo kind of state? If so, a keyword or state might be handy.
Does anybody remember good old gnu gnats, the old bug tracking system? It was great this way; it had an explicit notion of whose ball the court was in. I miss that.
- Dan
This is useless. Most bugs marked invalid are not Wine bugs. Only few are those that reporters did not include enough information.
Vitaliy
Vitaliy Margolen wrote:
Dan Kegel wrote:
Maybe add a resolution of NEEDMOREINFO?
There is no need to add one more reason for a bug resolution IMHO, INVALID with appropriate comment does the job.
INVALID seems harsh, it may scare away novice reporters.
Do we want to make it easy to search for bugs stuck in a needmoreinfo kind of state? If so, a keyword or state might be handy.
Does anybody remember good old gnu gnats, the old bug tracking system? It was great this way; it had an explicit notion of whose ball the court was in. I miss that.
- Dan
This is useless. Most bugs marked invalid are not Wine bugs. Only few are those that reporters did not include enough information.
I disagree. We need to have a method to let the reporter know that the project needs more information in order to properly troubleshoot a problem. Closing a reported bug as INVALID is not applicable in this case. If the bug is outside of the scope of the project, it should be marked as such. The word invalid to me means that the bug could not be reproduced or the information provided did not disclose a solvable problem OR the bug has already been fixed and that the fix will be in the next release. It may be necessary to add a resolution of NOTINPROJECT to handle those problems that are outside the scope of the project.
Just my .02 dollars.
James McKenzie
On Jan 5, 2008 7:02 PM, James McKenzie jjmckenzie51@sprintpcs.com wrote:
Vitaliy Margolen wrote:
Dan Kegel wrote:
Maybe add a resolution of NEEDMOREINFO?
There is no need to add one more reason for a bug resolution IMHO, INVALID with appropriate comment does the job.
INVALID seems harsh, it may scare away novice reporters.
Do we want to make it easy to search for bugs stuck in a needmoreinfo kind of state? If so, a keyword or state might be handy.
Does anybody remember good old gnu gnats, the old bug tracking system? It was great this way; it had an explicit notion of whose ball the court was in. I miss that.
- Dan
This is useless. Most bugs marked invalid are not Wine bugs. Only few are those that reporters did not include enough information.
I disagree. We need to have a method to let the reporter know that the project needs more information in order to properly troubleshoot a problem. Closing a reported bug as INVALID is not applicable in this case. If the bug is outside of the scope of the project, it should be marked as such. The word invalid to me means that the bug could not be reproduced or the information provided did not disclose a solvable problem OR the bug has already been fixed and that the fix will be in the next release. It may be necessary to add a resolution of NOTINPROJECT to handle those problems that are outside the scope of the project.
We do have a method: asking for information in a comment. Why would you close a bug as invalid if it's fixed in the next release? NOTINPROJECT? Invalid. Why make this even more complicated than it already is. Just say in a comment that the bug lies with another project and close it as invalid. In this case, invalid means 'not a Wine bug.'
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 01:19:35AM -0800, Dan Kegel wrote:
Maybe add a resolution of NEEDMOREINFO?
There is no need to add one more reason for a bug resolution IMHO, INVALID with appropriate comment does the job.
INVALID seems harsh, it may scare away novice reporters.
Yes if it's used without waiting for an answer (or even even more without requesting further clarification) it might make one feel shot down. And usually it's used too quickly. Most bug resolutions should probably be only done when some care or communication was done to check that it's the correct resolution, to avoid resolution ping-pong.
Do we want to make it easy to search for bugs stuck in a needmoreinfo kind of state? If so, a keyword or state might be handy.
I think a keyword would be appropriate. It would nicely fit with the "Abandoned?" keyword: first add needmoreinfo, if no answer for 6 month add "Abandoned?", after further 6 month resolve abandoned.
Jan
On Jan 5, 2008 7:02 PM, Jan Zerebecki jan.wine@zerebecki.de wrote:
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 01:19:35AM -0800, Dan Kegel wrote:
Maybe add a resolution of NEEDMOREINFO?
There is no need to add one more reason for a bug resolution IMHO, INVALID with appropriate comment does the job.
INVALID seems harsh, it may scare away novice reporters.
Yes if it's used without waiting for an answer (or even even more without requesting further clarification) it might make one feel shot down. And usually it's used too quickly. Most bug resolutions should probably be only done when some care or communication was done to check that it's the correct resolution, to avoid resolution ping-pong.
Do we want to make it easy to search for bugs stuck in a needmoreinfo kind of state? If so, a keyword or state might be handy.
I think a keyword would be appropriate. It would nicely fit with the "Abandoned?" keyword: first add needmoreinfo, if no answer for 6 month add "Abandoned?", after further 6 month resolve abandoned.
12 months to close a bug as abandoned? 6 months is already too long for abandoned. The policy has always been: if a reporter does not respond to an information request within X months, close the bug as abandoned. We have 3843 bugs for Wine and the list is only getting larger. This fear of closing bugs is only making the problem worse. People seem to forget that a user can always come back and reopen the bug report.
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 09:59:52PM -0700, James Hawkins wrote:
On Jan 5, 2008 7:02 PM, Jan Zerebecki jan.wine@zerebecki.de wrote:
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 01:19:35AM -0800, Dan Kegel wrote:
Maybe add a resolution of NEEDMOREINFO?
There is no need to add one more reason for a bug resolution IMHO, INVALID with appropriate comment does the job.
INVALID seems harsh, it may scare away novice reporters.
Yes if it's used without waiting for an answer (or even even more without requesting further clarification) it might make one feel shot down. And usually it's used too quickly. Most bug resolutions should probably be only done when some care or communication was done to check that it's the correct resolution, to avoid resolution ping-pong.
Do we want to make it easy to search for bugs stuck in a needmoreinfo kind of state? If so, a keyword or state might be handy.
I think a keyword would be appropriate. It would nicely fit with the "Abandoned?" keyword: first add needmoreinfo, if no answer for 6 month add "Abandoned?", after further 6 month resolve abandoned.
12 months to close a bug as abandoned? 6 months is already too long for abandoned. The policy has always been: if a reporter does not respond to an information request within X months, close the bug as abandoned. We have 3843 bugs for Wine and the list is only getting larger. This fear of closing bugs is only making the problem worse. People seem to forget that a user can always come back and reopen the bug report.
Afaik only selected users can reopen bugs. Users that can edit bugs and the reporter can do that and if I remember correctly we seem to want to also prevent the reporter from doing that.
Open bugs lingering in needmoreinfo or "Abandoned?" don't hurt. Othoh closing bugs too quickly as invalid or abandoned may drive bug reporters away which would hurt us in the long run.
If you'd just want to get less bugs we could have a special permission for filing bugs and only let selected people who we trust to report really useful bugs (though I think that is not what we want).
Anyway the 12 month were only an example, I'm fine with 6 month. I'm more concerned about closing bugs (e.g. as invalid) where someone is active and disagrees.
It might make sense to rename "Abandoned?" to needmoreinfo, so that one can key a bug as needmoreinfo and after x month with that keyword and no response resolve it abandoned.
Though we probably don't want to use needmoreinfo on bugs where it's possible for someone to retest if the bug is still there (e.g. where there is a download for the application and the bug is described sufficiently to check for it oneself).
Jan
Jan Zerebecki wrote:
It might make sense to rename "Abandoned?" to needmoreinfo, so that one can key a bug as needmoreinfo and after x month with that keyword and no response resolve it abandoned.
Though we probably don't want to use needmoreinfo on bugs where it's possible for someone to retest if the bug is still there (e.g. where there is a download for the application and the bug is described sufficiently to check for it oneself).
Jan:
1. I would give the original reporter less than six months to respond. I would wait no more than a month for a response before closing as abandoned.
2. The purpose of needsmoreinfo is that the original reporter did not supply sufficient information to reproduce the reported problem. If a reported problem can be tested, and the problem determined, then the bug should not be placed in a needsmoreinfo status. Another status would apply, like NEW or CONFIRMED, at this point.
James McKenzie
On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 04:32:20PM -0700, James McKenzie wrote:
Jan Zerebecki wrote:
It might make sense to rename "Abandoned?" to needmoreinfo, so that one can key a bug as needmoreinfo and after x month with that keyword and no response resolve it abandoned.
Though we probably don't want to use needmoreinfo on bugs where it's possible for someone to retest if the bug is still there (e.g. where there is a download for the application and the bug is described sufficiently to check for it oneself).
- I would give the original reporter less than six months to respond.
I would wait no more than a month for a response before closing as abandoned.
I know it can easily take a month for me to reply to a bug, especially when it requires testing to determine the content of my reply. Bug reports that are waiting for a reply can be flagged as such and thus can be filtered and thus they shouldn't bother anyone.
- The purpose of needsmoreinfo is that the original reporter did not
supply sufficient information to reproduce the reported problem. If a reported problem can be tested, and the problem determined, then the bug should not be placed in a needsmoreinfo status. Another status would apply, like NEW or CONFIRMED, at this point.
I agree. Neither should such a bug be flagged "Abandoned?" or resolved abandoned.
Jan
-
Dan Kegel -
James Hawkins -
James McKenzie -
Jan Zerebecki -
Vitaliy Margolen