[arch-general] Bad attitude in flyspray again!

[Aaron Griffin]

On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 5:48 PM, Isaac Dupree
<ml at isaac.cedarswampstudios.org> wrote:
> On 03/12/10 10:34, Aaron Griffin wrote:
>>
>> More-over, I think it is a bad idea. The only reason people want
>> commenting on closed bugs is so that they can argue with the
>> developers - give reasons why the bug shouldn't be closed. That's what
>> a reopen request is for. If that fails, then it's time to discuss it
>> directly with the developer in question
>
> Okay, here's my example (of a different reason to comment on a closed bug).
>
> I found bug #18022 that affected me, http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/18022 .
>  It was marked "closed" with
> "Reason for closing:  Fixed
> Additional comments about closing:  Assuming fixed with libdrm 2.4.17-4 +
> xf86-video-intel 2.10.0-1."
>
> I requested to re-open, saying that I was running libdrm 2.4.17-4 and
> xf86-video-intel 2.10.0-1 and it was not fixed with those versions.
>
> I got an e-mail response from FlySpray saying that the "assigned-to" person
> (JGC) denied my request, with the justification being "There's already an
> open bug for this."
>
> I didn't see any obvious polite way to respond ( -- which is a Flyspray
> issue. See below for what I did next/why.).  Replying in another re-open
> request seemed rude.  If bug #18022 was a duplicate, I couldn't see anywhere
> on the bug that said *which* open bug it was a duplicate of, so I couldn't
> go make a comment "there" instead.  Also, I searched, and in my judgment no
> other bug in bugs.archlinux.org besides #18022 seemed to quite match my
> symptoms.  Also, I could have opened yet another bug, but that seemed rude.
>
> (Also, it's an upstream bug, albeit a bug that makes one's machine unusable,
> so it isn't even one that I'd submit to Arch.  But, the bug existed in
> bugs.archlinux.org with inaccurate information that would bother future bug
> seekers/reporters, so I wanted it to be marked some way that's accurate, and
> would have liked to update it with my progress at reporting the bug
> upstream.)
>
> So I poked around and found JGC's email address according to
> bugs.archlinux.org and e-mailed in response (although I didn't get a
> response to my e-mail, so I don't know if it got to JGC successfully).
>
> I wrote to JGC:
>>
>> (I hope e-mailing your archlinux address is an okay way to reply, since
>> your reply to my reopen-request didn't appear anywhere on the Web that I
>> could find)
>>
>> If this bug is a duplicate, can you mark it as such, and say clearly which
>> bug it is a duplicate of?
>>
>> All I want to do is to leave a comment about my progress reporting the bug
>> upstream, so that other people who search and find this archlinux bug will
>> be less confused...
>>
>> This text is also a bit confusing given that the described bug is not
>> fixed, (nor even affected by upgrading to the mentioned versions)
>> "
>> Reason for closing:  Fixed
>> Additional comments about closing:  Assuming fixed with libdrm 2.4.17-4 +
>> xf86-video-intel 2.10.0-1.
>> "
>>
>> thanks?
>> -Isaac

So you wanted to add a comment totally unrelated to the bug itself to
the bug? Isn't that polluting the bug report? What happened here is
exactly what I'd expect - you contacted the developer.

Now, if it was difficult to find the email addresses, that's very
different and something we SHOULD fix.