[arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Allow comments on closed bugs?

[Heiko Baums]

Am Fri, 12 Mar 2010 20:22:35 -0500
schrieb Robert Howard <rjh0507 at 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