Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Allow comments on closed bugs?
Am Sat, 13 Mar 2010 10:58:24 +0100 schrieb Pierre Schmitz <pierre@archlinux.de>:
Yes, there are sometimes situations where I wanted to add a more or less important comment to a bug reports but it was just closed.
In the other hand I see the problems of never ending discussions and flame wars.
In other bug trackers I haven't seen never ending discussions and flame wars on closed bugs, yet. Sometimes long discussions happen on open bugs, but usually in a factual manner, and usually there's a reason for this, because it's a controversial issue. If a comment is written on a closed bug it's just to give some more details, because the fix is not quite sufficient or could be made still better or the like. And in cases in which it's possible to reopen a bug directly without sending a request, I also haven't seen exploitations. Usually the bug is reopened once or twice to give another argument or another aspect. But then it's alright. How many bug reports are actually invalid because of an imperfect knowledge or (search) laziness of the reporter? How many bug reports are of the type Aaron Griffin has mentioned before (Feature request, closed as "won't implement", reopend with "but it's a good feature", denied with "we won't implement this, wait for upstream", reopened, denied)? Are there really so many of them? I have my doubts. Or is this more the developer's fear that this could happen? And as I've written in other e-mails, don't see only your developer's point of view. See also the user's and reporter's point of view and how a certain bug handling (early closings, forcing reopening requests (begging), etc.) is or at least can be received by the user/reporter. Btw., comments on closed bugs is more or less a minor issue. The bigger issue is the early bug closing. ;-) Heiko
On 13/03/10 22:55, Heiko Baums wrote:
Am Sat, 13 Mar 2010 10:58:24 +0100 schrieb Pierre Schmitz<pierre@archlinux.de>:
Yes, there are sometimes situations where I wanted to add a more or less important comment to a bug reports but it was just closed.
In the other hand I see the problems of never ending discussions and flame wars.
In other bug trackers I haven't seen never ending discussions and flame wars on closed bugs, yet. Sometimes long discussions happen on open bugs, but usually in a factual manner, and usually there's a reason for this, because it's a controversial issue. If a comment is written on a closed bug it's just to give some more details, because the fix is not quite sufficient or could be made still better or the like.
And in cases in which it's possible to reopen a bug directly without sending a request, I also haven't seen exploitations. Usually the bug is reopened once or twice to give another argument or another aspect. But then it's alright.
You obviously do not visit the glibc tracker. Then again, perhaps there is a reason for such things in that particular project... And I have seen similar things on other distros trackers where reopens by users are allowed (yes, including Gentoo), although they obviously are not the usual. Then again, most bugs do not get re-open requests in Arch.
How many bug reports are actually invalid because of an imperfect knowledge or (search) laziness of the reporter? How many bug reports are of the type Aaron Griffin has mentioned before (Feature request, closed as "won't implement", reopend with "but it's a good feature", denied with "we won't implement this, wait for upstream", reopened, denied)? Are there really so many of them? I have my doubts. Or is this more the developer's fear that this could happen?
Yes, it occurs and not infrequently. The question should be does it occur more often than that bugs are closed to early? I.e. which solution would cause less total annoyance. Note that one option focuses the annoyance on a small number of devs, while the other spreads it out across many users.
And as I've written in other e-mails, don't see only your developer's point of view. See also the user's and reporter's point of view and how a certain bug handling (early closings, forcing reopening requests (begging), etc.) is or at least can be received by the user/reporter.
We are also users... According to flyspray, I have opened 126 bugs and I do not recall ever requesting or reopening one after it was closed. I do not see all reopen requests, but the need to "beg" seems overstated... I do know that it is much, much easier to get a bug reopened if the request is clear and well justified. A large portion of reopen requests provide no information to properly judge their merit in which case they are more likely denied. Allan
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
I do not see all reopen requests, but the need to "beg" seems overstated... I do know that it is much, much easier to get a bug reopened if the request is clear and well justified. A large portion of reopen requests provide no information to properly judge their merit in which case they are more likely denied.
The tiny size of the reopen textbox does not give a lot of freedom for justifications either. I think this is completely missing the point though. I don't understand why Dan is the only developer who sees that it sometimes makes sense to provide additional information on closed bug reports. (update : just saw there is also Pierre) If a bug becomes completely useless and irrelevant when it is closed, why keep it at all ? flyspray could just delete it. The moment a bug is closed is not the moment it becomes history, I can see plenty of cases where one might want to look back at a closed bug (and possibly complete or correct its contents). Now if you (and other dev) tells me that you do see that value, but there are more drawbacks caused by the big number of stupid arch users, then ok... the situation is just sad. But even then, if we consider these situations : 1) Stupid user Either keep posting stupid comments or requesting re-open. The developer just ignores it either way. Is there really a big difference between the two ? We not only assume users are stupid and will flame, but also that they will keep doing that eternally even if no one answers ? 2) Good user Won't post good additional informations because it's not possible. The reopen request just does not cut it. Anyway this is too much arguing for a relatively minor issue. Comments on closed bugs have the potential to be useful occasionally, that's all there is to it. And we are just talking about a flyspray option which can be turned on/off anytime without drawback ? It's not like it's a decision that can cause eternal pain. When it does reach the point where a developer is pissed off, you have your proof that comments on closed bugs is a bad thing, and you can justify disabling this feature. Thanks for accepting my reopening request, you can close the bug now :) Oops, cannot be done on the ML.
Xavier Chantry wrote:
The tiny size of the reopen textbox does not give a lot of freedom for justifications either. I think this is completely missing the point though. I don't understand why Dan is the only developer who sees that it sometimes makes sense to provide additional information on closed bug reports. (update : just saw there is also Pierre)
If a bug becomes completely useless and irrelevant when it is closed, why keep it at all ? flyspray could just delete it. The moment a bug is closed is not the moment it becomes history, I can see plenty of cases where one might want to look back at a closed bug (and possibly complete or correct its contents).
Now if you (and other dev) tells me that you do see that value, but there are more drawbacks caused by the big number of stupid arch users, then ok... the situation is just sad.
But even then, if we consider these situations : 1) Stupid user Either keep posting stupid comments or requesting re-open. The developer just ignores it either way. Is there really a big difference between the two ? We not only assume users are stupid and will flame, but also that they will keep doing that eternally even if no one answers ? 2) Good user Won't post good additional informations because it's not possible. The reopen request just does not cut it.
Anyway this is too much arguing for a relatively minor issue. Comments on closed bugs have the potential to be useful occasionally, that's all there is to it. And we are just talking about a flyspray option which can be turned on/off anytime without drawback ? It's not like it's a decision that can cause eternal pain. When it does reach the point where a developer is pissed off, you have your proof that comments on closed bugs is a bad thing, and you can justify disabling this feature.
Thanks for accepting my reopening request, you can close the bug now :) Oops, cannot be done on the ML.
I find that bugs should be commentable (and even reopenable!) after it was marked as 'fixed'. That's also how other trackers work. As some developers seems scared of what could happen, then there may be an additional locked flag, to "close harder". Rationale for not allowing comments is "I would need to stop tracking it" to not have stupid reopen requests. But if it's closed and people can't post comments, you still get mails asking for a reopen. IMHO useful comments are the ones which are lost the most, since smart guys are the ones that will shut up if the bug is closed -some dumb requests are also lost but other create reopen requests. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
participants (4)
-
Allan McRae
-
Heiko Baums
-
Linas
-
Xavier Chantry