[arch-general] Closing bugreports too fast?
Hello, i thought about a "trap" in which myself are also fallen sometimes: I look at the bugtracker to see if someone filed already a bugreport for a problem. But i don't find it cause it is already fixed and thereby marked as closed. And without using advandced search functions all searches are only done on open bugreports. As an example the problem yesterday with kdelibs: In forum thread someone says: i write a bugreport (without posting the number ;-) It was #10312 tpowa provided a fixed package in a nice short time, quickly, and then closed the report (fixed). But users in the forum have had problems to find this report cause it was closed. If i look at the history of the report i see: Aaron reopened it, then we have user request for closing an Jan closed it finally again. On such reports (the maintainer knows that many users would/could have the problem, sometimes only during different mirror syncing) i would suggest **not** to close such a report too fast. Ok, it is fixed from developer side (and maybe available on ftp.archlinux.org) but users could run in the problem probably later or tommorrow. I see no problem with reports where the reporter says: ok, it worked, you could close it. And where the maintainer knows: it was maybe a local or a problem on a minor package. But in situations like above it would be helpfully if the report wasn't closed (as well it was fixed on developer side), but maybe in a status like: fixed, scheduled for closing. But the report is "open" and so found on searching. I don't know if the bugtracker have such a function to closed it automatically for ex. after 6 days. On the other hand the maintainer must do this (it's additional work, but i think it's worth). Regards Gerhard -- Don't drink and root!
On 4/30/08, Gerhard Brauer <gerhard.brauer@web.de> wrote:
Hello,
i thought about a "trap" in which myself are also fallen sometimes: I look at the bugtracker to see if someone filed already a bugreport for a problem. But i don't find it cause it is already fixed and thereby marked as closed. And without using advandced search functions all searches are only done on open bugreports.
As an example the problem yesterday with kdelibs: In forum thread someone says: i write a bugreport (without posting the number ;-) It was #10312 tpowa provided a fixed package in a nice short time, quickly, and then closed the report (fixed). But users in the forum have had problems to find this report cause it was closed. If i look at the history of the report i see: Aaron reopened it, then we have user request for closing an Jan closed it finally again.
On such reports (the maintainer knows that many users would/could have the problem, sometimes only during different mirror syncing) i would suggest **not** to close such a report too fast. Ok, it is fixed from developer side (and maybe available on ftp.archlinux.org) but users could run in the problem probably later or tommorrow.
I see no problem with reports where the reporter says: ok, it worked, you could close it. And where the maintainer knows: it was maybe a local or a problem on a minor package. But in situations like above it would be helpfully if the report wasn't closed (as well it was fixed on developer side), but maybe in a status like: fixed, scheduled for closing. But the report is "open" and so found on searching. I don't know if the bugtracker have such a function to closed it automatically for ex. after 6 days. On the other hand the maintainer must do this (it's additional work, but i think it's worth).
Regards Gerhard
-- Don't drink and root!
I would never have thought that closing bug reports too fast would be a problem to someone. IMHO you are making this seem like an issue when it really isnt. Just make a duplicate bug report. Noone will mock you for making it.Lets not overcomplicate things when there is no need. The flyspray interface sucks enough already. Greg
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 12:26:43PM +0300, Grigorios Bouzakis wrote:
On 4/30/08, Gerhard Brauer <gerhard.brauer@web.de> wrote:
I would never have thought that closing bug reports too fast would be a problem to someone. IMHO you are making this seem like an issue when it really isnt.
It's not - more - an issue for me, I've learned my lesson ;-) (That is, was Xavier mentioned in his answer). But i know 3 other tasks were the user must be pointed: Look directly to #12345, the problem you ask about is already fixed (and closed). It doesn't sound very logical to me that one must search in closed reports to find a solution(or report) for a problem which is real actual for him. Specially when after doing a pacman -Syu with no harm later his KDE is broken. I don't speak from outdated mirrors or when users don't read pacman outputs. I speak from situations were user make everything right. Maybe i have an other point of view on some things (i am more from the service side, not developer side). I will provide enviroments where users could easily find all necassary informations, so i could say: It's the only problem that you doesn't read/noticed them. For example i/we handle the kdelibs problem on archlinux.de: I noticed that there would be a problem for everyone. So i make a "urgent" post in forum and a notice on the start site. Most of our mirrors at this time have had the old package, not the faulty. But i knewed that we could get many users with problems when the infomation could not be found (and what to to: skip the update and later either downgrade or get the fixed package). That all was done cause i'm lazy, i don't want to have 20 users with a broken KDE shouting loudly in forum. Today (after mirror syncing) i removed the warning from the main site and after next 2 days i flag the forum warning about kdelibs as "fixed". I don't request a general paradigm change on flyspray, only a little thinking from developers that user problems arent't fixed when you do a :wq or C-x C-s ;-)
Just make a duplicate bug report. Noone will mock you for making it.Lets not overcomplicate things when there is no need.
That sounds more complicated (more work) to me rather than wait 1 or 2 days before closing a report ;-)
Greg
Regards Gerhard -- OOP? Frueher haben wir die Fehler selbst programmiert, heute werden sie vererbt.
On Wed, April 30, 2008 13:41, Gerhard Brauer wrote:
It's not - more - an issue for me, I've learned my lesson ;-) (That is, was Xavier mentioned in his answer). But i know 3 other tasks were the user must be pointed: Look directly to #12345, the problem you ask about is already fixed (and closed).
I don't see any reason why anybody would actually *search* for bugs that are announced that way. There's a reason for the Task ID being supplied, namely to enable users to enter it directly into that dedicated little search field labeled "Show Task #" fitted snugly into the upper right corner of the flyspray GUI, which leads upon activation directly to the task specified, no matter it's status. However, I'm sorely aware of the problem of not finding closed bugs by default; It's really annoying to be basically forced to always use the enhanced search features. However, as long as the ID is announced, that's simply not an issue. If people who refer to tasks intend to be nice to their readers, though, it's surely a good idea to link the bug id. Saves a couple seconds and prevents typos on the user's side. Either way, deferring bug closure introduces, by definition, an inconsistency between facts and reports. Yeah, that's just a fancy way of saying "Fixed bugs appear as still unfixed". That sucks, because it might entice another developer or *anyone*, for that matter, to look into an issue that is in fact already fixed! To me it does not seem feasible to artificially introduce what could be described as an "intended lack of communication" to circumvent a perceived inability of users to use Flyspray optimally. HELL, NO!!1!eleven RTFM is key, as with all that is Arch. Actually, knowingly introducing inconsistencies into any kind of data storage seems so inherently evil to me that I personally have real trouble reciting good arguments against it! ;)
Regards Gerhard
$POLITE_CLOSURE, Dennis
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 4:26 AM, Grigorios Bouzakis <grbzks@gmail.com> wrote:
I would never have thought that closing bug reports too fast would be a problem to someone. IMHO you are making this seem like an issue when it really isnt. Just make a duplicate bug report. Noone will mock you for making it.Lets not overcomplicate things when there is no need. The flyspray interface sucks enough already.
Wow... you guys sure do like to discuss things that are so trivial it gives me a headache. Greg is right. If it was closed, request it be re-opened or file another report. Sheesh
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 11:03 AM, Gerhard Brauer <gerhard.brauer@web.de> wrote:
But users in the forum have had problems to find this report cause it was closed.
What about simply educating these users to also search closed bug reports?
participants (5)
-
Aaron Griffin
-
Dennis Herbrich
-
Gerhard Brauer
-
Grigorios Bouzakis
-
Xavier