Trying to get a grip on how to handle bug reports.

[Kai Blin]

Hi folks,

I seem to have done something wrong referring a user to a closed bug report 
that seemed to be related to the problem he was having. (See bug 11639 for 
more context)

So in order to avoid me being the cause a user defiles the holy status of a 
closed bug, I'd like to have some clear rules on how to handle related bug 
reports.

And you folks wonder why we don't have a healthy user community. Sometimes I 
feel like talking to a brick wall.

Kai

[James Hawkins]

On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Kai Blin  wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I seem to have done something wrong referring a user to a closed bug report
>  that seemed to be related to the problem he was having. (See bug 11639 for
>  more context)
>
> So in order to avoid me being the cause a user defiles the holy status of a
>  closed bug, I'd like to have some clear rules on how to handle related bug
>  reports.

It's actually a lot simpler than that.  While we don't want users
filing duplicate bug reports, a bug can't be a duplicate of another
bug that is already fixed.  The right thing to do would be to tell
that user to file a new bug report, referring to the closed bug report
if he really feels like it.  Sure they very well maybe be related, but
the fact remains that one bug is fixed, while another bug is not
fixed.  Thus, they're not the same bug.  By the way, if you really
want to help this situation, I don't recommend the sarcasm.
> And you folks wonder why we don't have a healthy user community. Sometimes I
>  feel like talking to a brick wall.

http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11639#c16
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11639#c18

Those are links to my comments for the bug report in question.  The
user was told to file a new bug report.  Once the user kept commenting
in the closed bug report (and not filing a new bug report), I told him
to stop posting in a closed bug.  Since when is this not standard?

[Alexander Dorofeyev]

James Hawkins wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Kai Blin  wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > I seem to have done something wrong referring a user to a closed bug report
> >  that seemed to be related to the problem he was having. (See bug 11639 for
> >  more context)
> >
> > So in order to avoid me being the cause a user defiles the holy status of a
> >  closed bug, I'd like to have some clear rules on how to handle related bug
> >  reports.
>
> It's actually a lot simpler than that.  While we don't want users
> filing duplicate bug reports, a bug can't be a duplicate of another
> bug that is already fixed.  The right thing to do would be to tell
> that user to file a new bug report, referring to the closed bug report
> if he really feels like it.  Sure they very well maybe be related, but
> the fact remains that one bug is fixed, while another bug is not
> fixed.  Thus, they're not the same bug.  By the way, if you really
> want to help this situation, I don't recommend the sarcasm.
> > And you folks wonder why we don't have a healthy user community. Sometimes I
> >  feel like talking to a brick wall.
>
> http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11639#c16
> http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11639#c18
>
> Those are links to my comments for the bug report in question.  The
> user was told to file a new bug report.  Once the user kept commenting
> in the closed bug report (and not filing a new bug report), I told him
> to stop posting in a closed bug.  Since when is this not standard?

I think bugzilla operators are a bit too trigger happy lately, in particular 
with abandoning bugs. For example: http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12437

"The tests aren't time consuming, but if you choose to not do the tests, we'll
have to close this bug as abandoned."

And there's a link mentioned in comments to downloadable trial that can 
(reportedly) be used to reproduce. Sure, the user should've filled the URL 
field. But, it's pointless to expect users to 1) do everything right 2) follow 
their bugs indefinitely (sometimes for years). 3) always be willing to do time 
consuming and otherwise demanding operations like regression test.

If a user submitted enough info to make it possible for developer to reproduce 
or otherwise make sense of a bug, he has already done a commendable job. IMHO 
care should be taken not to "abandon" bugs without good reason, such as bug 
description that makes no sense, absence of any useful logs and obscure app for 
which no download can be googled and user not responding for a long period of time.

[James Hawkins]

On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 2:01 PM, Alexander Dorofeyev  wrote:
> James Hawkins wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Kai Blin  wrote:
> > > Hi folks,
> > >
> > > I seem to have done something wrong referring a user to a closed bug report
> > >  that seemed to be related to the problem he was having. (See bug 11639 for
> > >  more context)
> > >
> > > So in order to avoid me being the cause a user defiles the holy status of a
> > >  closed bug, I'd like to have some clear rules on how to handle related bug
> > >  reports.
> >
> > It's actually a lot simpler than that.  While we don't want users
> > filing duplicate bug reports, a bug can't be a duplicate of another
> > bug that is already fixed.  The right thing to do would be to tell
> > that user to file a new bug report, referring to the closed bug report
> > if he really feels like it.  Sure they very well maybe be related, but
> > the fact remains that one bug is fixed, while another bug is not
> > fixed.  Thus, they're not the same bug.  By the way, if you really
> > want to help this situation, I don't recommend the sarcasm.
> > > And you folks wonder why we don't have a healthy user community. Sometimes I
> > >  feel like talking to a brick wall.
> >
> > http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11639#c16
> > http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11639#c18
> >
> > Those are links to my comments for the bug report in question.  The
> > user was told to file a new bug report.  Once the user kept commenting
> > in the closed bug report (and not filing a new bug report), I told him
> > to stop posting in a closed bug.  Since when is this not standard?
>
> I think bugzilla operators are a bit too trigger happy lately, in particular
>  with abandoning bugs. For example: http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12437
>
> "The tests aren't time consuming, but if you choose to not do the tests, we'll
>  have to close this bug as abandoned."

Can we all stop with the sensationalist comments?  Seriously.  If
you'll actually read what I said, I made no threats, nor was I rude.
I also didn't change the resolution of the bug, so where's the
trigger-pulling you refer to?  The only mistake I made, which was a
mistake on the part of everyone triaging this bug, was that I didn't
know the bug was freely reproducible.  That's the worst I did, and
that's not a big deal, and certainly not worth your reply.
> And there's a link mentioned in comments to downloadable trial that can
>  (reportedly) be used to reproduce. Sure, the user should've filled the URL
>  field. But, it's pointless to expect users to 1) do everything right 2) follow
>  their bugs indefinitely (sometimes for years). 3) always be willing to do time
>  consuming and otherwise demanding operations like regression test.

On behalf of the regular bugzilla moderators (of which there are very
few), I'll go over the policy we have in place to keep, or strive to
attain, a manageable bugzilla database.  There are only a few
conditions that warrant abandoning a bug:

a) the bug must not be freely reproducible
b) the reporter has not responded to a request for more information in
at least 3 months, or
c) the reporter will not or can not provide the information requested,
usually not doing the regression testing

If you have a problem with any of these policies, bring it up in
wine-devel, but don't single me out.  We devote so much of our free
time to keep our bugzilla manageable, and a big part of that is
weeding out bugs which we can do nothing about (abandoned).
> If a user submitted enough info to make it possible for developer to reproduce
>  or otherwise make sense of a bug, he has already done a commendable job. IMHO
>  care should be taken not to "abandon" bugs without good reason, such as bug
>  description that makes no sense, absence of any useful logs and obscure app for
>  which no download can be googled and user not responding for a long period of time.

Besides the reproducible part of this last paragraph, you're
describing an invalid bug, not abandoned.

[Jan Zerebecki]

On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 02:28:15PM -0500, James Hawkins wrote:
> On behalf of the regular bugzilla moderators (of which there are very
> few), I'll go over the policy we have in place to keep, or strive to
> attain, a manageable bugzilla database.  There are only a few
> conditions that warrant abandoning a bug:
>
> a) the bug must not be freely reproducible
> b) the reporter has not responded to a request for more information in
> at least 3 months, or
> c) the reporter will not or can not provide the information requested,
> usually not doing the regression testing

We should probably have such information on the wiki.
please :)

Jan