Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Allow comments on closed bugs?
Am Sat, 13 Mar 2010 08:39:05 +1000 schrieb Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org>:
I really do not see the need.
If a bug is wrongly closed -> request a reopen. If you just want to confirm a bug has been fixed, there is no need... we already closed the bug report. If there is a "better" fix, reopen request or new bug report.
And this is forcing the reporter to begging for reopening and looking again at the bug. Closing a bug too early can in the reporter's sight mean: "Hey! I'm the king and I decide if I'm willing to fix the bug. And if I don't want to, then you don't have to say anything. Your subject to my merci." Of course this is a bit exaggerated and of course in most cases the developer doesn't mean it, but this is how the reporter can easily understand it. And this can lead to such misunderstandings and to angry reactions. Don't see this only from your (the developer's) point of view. Try to see it from the reporter's point of view. Greetings, Heiko
What do other distros do on their bugtrackers? We should allow comments after closing to facilitate further user input. Lets not forget that Arch Linux would not be in it's current state without user/dev interaction. On Mar 12, 2010 7:19 PM, "Heiko Baums" <lists@baums-on-web.de> wrote: Am Sat, 13 Mar 2010 08:39:05 +1000 schrieb Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org>:
I really do not see the need.
If a bug is wrongly closed -> request a reopen. If you just ... And this is forcing the reporter to begging for reopening and looking again at the bug.
Closing a bug too early can in the reporter's sight mean: "Hey! I'm the king and I decide if I'm willing to fix the bug. And if I don't want to, then you don't have to say anything. Your subject to my merci." Of course this is a bit exaggerated and of course in most cases the developer doesn't mean it, but this is how the reporter can easily understand it. And this can lead to such misunderstandings and to angry reactions. Don't see this only from your (the developer's) point of view. Try to see it from the reporter's point of view. Greetings, Heiko
Am Fri, 12 Mar 2010 20:22:35 -0500 schrieb Robert Howard <rjh0507@ecu.edu>:
What do other distros do on their bugtrackers? We should allow comments after closing to facilitate further user input. Lets not forget that Arch Linux would not be in it's current state without user/dev interaction.
I used Gentoo for several years before I switched to Arch Linux a few years ago. On the Gentoo bug tracker I had the impression that every bug report is taken seriously. The developers are not so easily annoyed by invalid bug reports where a user just have missed an option in his system configuration, because this can happen to everyone, or hasn't enough knowledge. And the Gentoo Bugzilla isn't degenerated to a support forum. If it turns out that a bug report is just caused by a wrong configuration the developers or users who read the bug report usually just explain what is wrong and how to fix it. Or they point to the forums or the documentation and what to search for. If the reporter and the developer disagree the issue is discussed before a bug is just be closed as "won't fix". How long the discussion takes or the result of the discussion depends on the bug. In not a few cases some or many other users and developers take part on such discussions. If a developer can't reproduce a bug he usually tells it in a comment without closing the bug. A bug is usually only closed if the bug is definitely fixed or if the fix or the invalidity is confirmed by the reporter or another user who has this issue, too. If the developer couldn't reproduce the bug he usually asks for testing the fix. There are still some bugs - at least one of mine - open since several years with several duplicates. Usually these are annoying but not the most important issues. If a bug is closed at once - usually this is only done by bug wranglers, but not by developers - the bug report can easily be reopened by the reporter. And if a bug is closed too early the bug wrangler usually gives a reason for this in the comments, and the reporter can easily reply with a comment. In the cases I know, then the bug was kept open and the developer to whom it was assigned deals with it and decides what to do. Well, Gentoo has a lot more developers than Arch Linux, so Gentoo has more manpower than Arch Linux. But I bet, this could be changed on Arch. I would sum it up a bit simplified that Gentoo is more user than developer driven while Arch Linux is currently more developer than user driven. It's not that the users can't file feature requests or take part on discussions with the Arch developers. And usually the Arch developers listen to the users. But I read too many times sentences like "Arch is/was from developers for developers", "the developers only maintain, what they want", etc. And too many times some developers speak openly that they don't like Arch's growing user community. This somehow keeps the users and their needs and wishes out. Yes, I know, this is not quite right, but sometimes I have a bit the impression. The early bug closing issue is one of the reasons for this impression. Also AUR is usually seen as unofficial by the developers, because the packages are merely made by usual users. Sometimes I'd prefer if AUR would be seen as unstable but official a bit like Gentoo's sunrise overlay. Of course the AUR maintainers don't need to and shouldn't get developer or TU status just because they maintain such a package. The user/dev interaction is, btw., the engine of the whole OpenSource community. Heiko
On 03/12/2010 06:20 PM, Heiko Baums wrote:
Am Sat, 13 Mar 2010 08:39:05 +1000 schrieb Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org>:
I really do not see the need.
If a bug is wrongly closed -> request a reopen. If you just want to confirm a bug has been fixed, there is no need... we already closed the bug report. If there is a "better" fix, reopen request or new bug report.
And this is forcing the reporter to begging for reopening and looking again at the bug.
Closing a bug too early can in the reporter's sight mean: "Hey! I'm the king and I decide if I'm willing to fix the bug. And if I don't want to, then you don't have to say anything. Your subject to my merci."
Of course this is a bit exaggerated and of course in most cases the developer doesn't mean it, but this is how the reporter can easily understand it. And this can lead to such misunderstandings and to angry reactions.
Don't see this only from your (the developer's) point of view. Try to see it from the reporter's point of view.
Greetings, Heiko
This is currently the state at opensuse and KDE and is a primary reason for all the new Arch users and all the new users of xfce, fluxbox and gnome. We are all in this together. One of the things that makes a distro great in the eyes of the user is reasonably friendly and open devs. That is one thing I liked about Arch. It is worth continuing. If a user is doing something that is annoying to the developers, and ounce of explanation can go a long way. If for example some user has repeatedly attempted to reopen a bug for improper reasons, then a kind, but firm, explanation can do wonders to accomplish the goals for all involved. Something like: "The addition of patch xyz has be discussed among the team and it has been decided against for a,b,c reason. We have your request and if it provides an advantage in the future, it may be incorporated. Currently, you are welcome to incorporate it in you system through the ABS or AUR system." Many times the dev/user interactions seem hostile or combative when all the user is doing is to try and help make Arch better. Taking an extra few seconds to give enough of an explanation as to why a decision was made the way it was can eliminate 95% of any misunderstanding. (the other 5% are just nuts who will never be made happy :-) Arch has a great thing going and from what I can tell is headed in the right direction, we should all work hard to keep it going in the same direction. Maintaining a positive user/dev relationship of trust and respect is a big part of that. -- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E. Rankin Law Firm, PLLC 510 Ochiltree Street Nacogdoches, Texas 75961 Telephone: (936) 715-9333 Facsimile: (936) 715-9339 www.rankinlawfirm.com
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 04:32:20PM -0600, David C. Rankin wrote:
This is currently the state at opensuse and KDE and is a primary reason for all the new Arch users and all the new users of xfce, fluxbox and gnome.
We are all in this together. One of the things that makes a distro great in the eyes of the user is reasonably friendly and open devs. That is one thing I liked about Arch. It is worth continuing.
If a user is doing something that is annoying to the developers, and ounce of explanation can go a long way. If for example some user has repeatedly attempted to reopen a bug for improper reasons, then a kind, but firm, explanation can do wonders to accomplish the goals for all involved.
I couldn't agree more. The purpose of all 'ticket' based systems - help lines, public services, bug trackers, whatever - is to replace normal human interaction by some 'documented procedure'. They are as easily abused in either direction as what they try to replace, and the result when this happens is worse than it would otherwise be. (*) A dev/maintainer not paying attention and rejecting a bug report without having really understood it has no more excuse than the typical troller. Even less. Assuming a dev/maintainer position is a free choice in our world, and as with every free choice it is assumed you accept the responsabilities and inconveniences. (*) What else would you expect from something invented by MBA types. Ciao, -- FA O tu, che porte, correndo si ? E guerra e morte !
Am Sat, 13 Mar 2010 16:32:20 -0600 schrieb "David C. Rankin" <drankinatty@suddenlinkmail.com>:
This is currently the state at opensuse and KDE and is a primary reason for all the new Arch users and all the new users of xfce, fluxbox and gnome.
There also may be some other reasons for all the new Arch users. ;-)
Arch has a great thing going and from what I can tell is headed in the right direction, we should all work hard to keep it going in the same direction. Maintaining a positive user/dev relationship of trust and respect is a big part of that.
If I would find that the Arch community and the Arch developers are generally unfriendly, arrogant or ignorant, I just would wipe my hard disk and install a different distro. I've also written, that in my cases I had the impression that the early bug closing was arrogant and ignorant. This was of course a misunderstanding as I know in the meantime. I know, I repeat myself - I opened this thread to express my impressions I had regarding these certain bug reports and in the hope that the devs think about this and won't close bugs too early in the future, and that probably can be discussed some ways how to reduce such misunderstandings and to improve the user/dev communication. Of course the users shouldn't write such "me, too" comments if they don't provide additional informations which help fixing the bug. And I think this thread became a quite substantial discussion with some pretty good arguments and suggestions. Heiko
There is already an arch-general thread about this topic. This one was intended to gauge the opinions of the _developers_ (hence the reason it was on the dev list). I am all for keeping things open, but polluting things with arguments from outside is just making this harder. And now this discussion is going to be made private, to keep out the outside comments so that we can get a better grasp of the situation. Mr Heiko, I know you feel you have a vested interest in this topic, but you're just adding useless noise to the discussion. This is quite ironic as this is EXACTLY what you claim will not happen were we to allow comments on closed bugs. Cheers
Am Mon, 15 Mar 2010 10:33:48 -0600 schrieb Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>:
Mr Heiko, I know you feel you have a vested interest in this topic, but you're just adding useless noise to the discussion. This is quite ironic as this is EXACTLY what you claim will not happen were we to allow comments on closed bugs.
I don't think that I'm adding useless noise. I said what I thought about how some of my bugs have been handled, how this is taken by me and that I was quite angry about that. And I gave arguments and also suggestions. And of course I respond to some e-mails or another. And my concerns are not about comments on closed bugs. This was only one of many suggestions other people made to reduce such misunderstandings and to improve the bug handling. Other good suggestions and alternatives have been mentioned, too, also by other people. But I think many good ideas have been given. What I wish is just, that bugs will be taken more seriously even if there are some invalid bug reports which are caused by a wrong configuration and even if some bug reports are written by users with a not so good knowledge. This can't be avoided anyway. I generally don't care how this is done, if it's done by commenting on closed bugs, by the possibility on reopen bugs at once without sending a request or whatever. My wish is, that the reporter first get's a chance to respond and give more details before a bug is closed as "works for me" or the like. And if a bug is closed the reason for closing should first be given in a comment. Any other things are just technical details which can help for a better bug handling. And I think that it can't hurt if you also listen to the user's arguments and discuss with the users instead of telling them that their comments are useless noise. One more point which let me doubt of the user-friendliness of not all but at least some (most likely only a few) developers. Of course the technical details about the actual implementation of some features can be discussed private between the developers. I have indeed read these statements from developers: "Arch is/was from developers for developers", "the developers only maintain, what they want", and that they don't like or care about the "normal" users very much. And that's just not what I'm used to from other distros. And don't mistake it. I don't say that every developer is like this. And I don't say that Arch is bad, that the developers are unfriendly and not helpful in general, don't make good jobs, etc. But this had to be said. I think becoming a bit more open-minded towards the users would be more important than discussing about commenting on closed bugs which could be done nevertheless. Heiko
participants (5)
-
Aaron Griffin
-
David C. Rankin
-
fons＠kokkinizita.net
-
Heiko Baums
-
Robert Howard