Mike Hearn wrote:
So are we misleading users by having a bugzilla into thinking that if they file a bug there, it'll be fixed when it probably won't?
Not at all. Just because not enough people are doing bug triage or fixing doesn't mean we should drop bugzilla. Somebody will eventually go through the bug reports, I think.
If we were to simply drop bugzilla, how would it impact the project?
It would deprive us of long-term memory. For instance, I filed the bug report http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1404 in January 2003 with a nice test case (but one that's hard to translate into a unit test). Without Bugzilla, we'd have a harder time remembering problems like that. (Unless cxtest really takes off, I suppose...) - Dan
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 20:45:18 -0700, Dan Kegel wrote:
It would deprive us of long-term memory. For instance, I filed the bug report http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1404 in January 2003 with a nice test case (but one that's hard to translate into a unit test). Without Bugzilla, we'd have a harder time remembering problems like that. (Unless cxtest really takes off, I suppose...)
Well, Wine has lots of problems (relative to the task at hand) - is it *worth* keeping track of problems for this long? If it's been >12 months and nobody fixed it, it probably won't get fixed until somebody with sufficient debugging skills rediscovers it in their own app.
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 01:56:45PM +0100, Mike Hearn wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 20:45:18 -0700, Dan Kegel wrote:
It would deprive us of long-term memory. For instance, I filed the bug report http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1404 in January 2003 with a nice test case (but one that's hard to translate into a unit test). Without Bugzilla, we'd have a harder time remembering problems like that. (Unless cxtest really takes off, I suppose...)
Well, Wine has lots of problems (relative to the task at hand) - is it *worth* keeping track of problems for this long? If it's been >12 months and nobody fixed it, it probably won't get fixed until somebody with sufficient debugging skills rediscovers it in their own app.
...and finds that the app given in that bug report (which could be downloaded since the submitter included a URL) is much smaller than the app he has observed the bug with, so he manages to fix the bug with this app much more easily than with his own app.
Let's face it, arguing to abolish Bugzilla stands on a very weak position from the beginning. Having any memory at all (even if it's badly managed) is still better than not having it, unless we're wasting a sizeable amount of development resources on an ill-maintained Bugzilla, which I don't believe we do.
Or am I missing something?
Andreas Mohr
On Thu, 2004-07-29 at 15:34 +0200, Andreas Mohr wrote:
Let's face it, arguing to abolish Bugzilla stands on a very weak position from the beginning. Having any memory at all (even if it's badly managed) is still better than not having it, unless we're wasting a sizeable amount of development resources on an ill-maintained Bugzilla, which I don't believe we do.
Or am I missing something?
Nope, that argument seems reasonable.
I don't have any strong opinion on the matter, I was just playing devils advocate :) Always useful to re-examine how we're helping or hindering users, even if the eventual conclusion is that we're doing OK.
-
Andreas Mohr -
Dan Kegel -
Mike Hearn