FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > ArchLinux > ArchLinux General Discussion

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 03-10-2010, 02:42 PM
Heiko Baums
 
Default Bad attitude in flyspray again!

Hi devs,

I just wanted to ask if it will become common practise to close bug
reports at once as "Works for me" and to imply the reporter that he
hasn't done his "homework" like searching the forums and using "wrong"
software and that the reported bug is just a configuration issue?

Meanwhile this happened twice - both bug reports have been assigned to
the same developer as far as I remember, the first one was assigned to
a second developer, too.

And in the first case it has been assured, that this was indeed an
upstream bug, after I sent a reopening request. The reopening request
of the second bug was just denied even if it's also most likely a bug.
I just don't know if it's an upstream or a downstream bug, so I
reported it first downstream.

In my eyes this is a real bad attitude and just ignorant against the
users or the bug reporters. And this really doesn't help keeping a
distro running. I'm used a much friendlier and more helpful attitude on
other bug trackers (upstream as well as downstream).

This is definitely not concerning all devs, but such an attitude
shouldn't become common practise. Otherwise it would be better to leave
Arch Linux what I would regret and avoid because Arch Linux is one of
the best distros.

If a dev doesn't have time enough or doesn't feel like dealing with a
bug report then he should think about resigning being a dev in my sight.

It's also not very friendly but ok, if the reporter is asked in a
comment - without closing the bug - if he has searched the forums or if
he has done this or that configuration. Of course it can happen that a
bug report is invalid. Nobody is omniscient and sometimes it can
happen that somebody doesn't occur every possible configuration, but I
guess in most cases it can be assumed that the reporter has done
everything he can do to rule out such configuration issues before
reporting the bug. And especially if something has worked with the
previous version and the problem occurs only after an update without
changing the configuration or having a .pacnew file, a hint in the
post_install or in the news it can be assumed that this is a bug.

And I'm willing to help searching for the reason for a bug, fixing and
testing as far as I can.

It would be nice if bug reports will be taken seriously in the future.

Greetings,
Heiko
 
Old 03-11-2010, 07:19 PM
Dimitrios Apostolou
 
Default Bad attitude in flyspray again!

My primary complaint against flyspray is that it doesn't allow comments to
be added after the bug is closed. The only way is by doing a request to
reopen the bug, and even in that case your comment is not added to the
comment list.


Wouldn't this functionality remedy the "closing bugs early" situation? Is
it supported in flyspray?



Dimitris
 
Old 03-11-2010, 07:59 PM
Aaron Griffin
 
Default Bad attitude in flyspray again!

On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 2:19 PM, Dimitrios Apostolou <jimis@gmx.net> wrote:
> My primary complaint against flyspray is that it doesn't allow comments to
> be added after the bug is closed. The only way is by doing a request to
> reopen the bug, and even in that case your comment is not added to the
> comment list.
>
> Wouldn't this functionality remedy the "closing bugs early" situation? Is it
> supported in flyspray?

Commenting on bugs after they are closed will just annoy the
developer. If you have an issue with the fix or something, reopening
is the right action. If you have information to add, then add it to
the wiki, as THAT is the source of documentation, not flyspray
 
Old 03-11-2010, 08:41 PM
Heiko Baums
 
Default Bad attitude in flyspray again!

Am Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:19:46 +0200 (GTB Standard Time)
schrieb Dimitrios Apostolou <jimis@gmx.net>:

> My primary complaint against flyspray is that it doesn't allow
> comments to be added after the bug is closed. The only way is by
> doing a request to reopen the bug, and even in that case your comment
> is not added to the comment list.
>
> Wouldn't this functionality remedy the "closing bugs early"
> situation? Is it supported in flyspray?

This functionality would be much better. The comment for reopening is
not sufficient. Usually on other bug trackers, there's a function
"reopen" which reopens the bug at once and you can add a normal comment.

In the way it is handled by flyspray now it is more like begging:
"Please developer, be so kind and look again at it."

In cases like my last one this can lead to misunderstandings and the
like.

Still better would be, if bugs would not be closed at once. If
something works for the developer, which can be, then the developer can
write a comment and ask for more details. If it turns out, that this is
indeed not a bug then the bug can still be closed. Such invalid bugs
can surely be annoying but can't be inhibited. I, too, filed a few
invalid bug reports in the past, because I missed an option
somewhere. Nobody is omniscient.

In my case it turned out that the developer hasn't read my bug report
precisely enough and I didn't read the comment of the denial of
reopening so that I missed, that it was denied by another developer to
which the bug wasn't assigned. And such a closure of a bug hasn't
happened the first time for me. This was the reason why I was quite
angry. And I don't like such an unfriendly conversation.

One can talk about almost everything.

It would be better, if the developers would wait for an answer of the
reporter until they decide to close a bug. It's much friendlier,
doesn't seem to be arrogant or ignorant and wouldn't make much more
work. And the decision of an reopening request should probably be made
by the developer to whom the bug is assigned.

Greetings,
Heiko
 
Old 03-11-2010, 08:49 PM
Heiko Baums
 
Default Bad attitude in flyspray again!

Am Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:59:07 -0600
schrieb Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>:

> Commenting on bugs after they are closed will just annoy the
> developer. If you have an issue with the fix or something, reopening
> is the right action. If you have information to add, then add it to
> the wiki, as THAT is the source of documentation, not flyspray

But the wiki is for documentations, not for comments on a bug report or
closure.

As long as it is possible to reopen a bug commenting on closed bugs is
not necessary. But there are bug trackers which don't allow reopening
but writing comments on closed bugs. I think this is a matter of taste.

What's more important is, that bugs aren't closed at once without
asking for more details and an answer of the reporter. I guess in most
cases there's a reason why a bug is reported.

Greetings,
Heiko
 
Old 03-11-2010, 08:57 PM
Hussam Al-Tayeb
 
Default Bad attitude in flyspray again!

On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 14:59 -0600, Aaron Griffin wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 2:19 PM, Dimitrios Apostolou <jimis@gmx.net> wrote:
> > My primary complaint against flyspray is that it doesn't allow comments to
> > be added after the bug is closed. The only way is by doing a request to
> > reopen the bug, and even in that case your comment is not added to the
> > comment list.
> >
> > Wouldn't this functionality remedy the "closing bugs early" situation? Is it
> > supported in flyspray?
>
> Commenting on bugs after they are closed will just annoy the
> developer. If you have an issue with the fix or something, reopening
> is the right action. If you have information to add, then add it to
> the wiki, as THAT is the source of documentation, not flyspray


You should consider moving to bugzilla. mozilla and gnome use it. it's
an excellent bug tracker. I've used it to report literally hundreds or
gnome or mozilla bugs. not only is it easier on developers but it is
also better for users. flyspray is not as smart as bugzilla.
this won't work of course if there is no converter.
 
Old 03-11-2010, 08:58 PM
Daenyth Blank
 
Default Bad attitude in flyspray again!

On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 16:57, Hussam Al-Tayeb <ht990332@gmail.com> wrote:
> You should consider moving to bugzilla.

-1. I've used bugzilla, and the interface is absolutely horrible.
Flyspray is much much better.
 
Old 03-11-2010, 09:01 PM
Allan McRae
 
Default Bad attitude in flyspray again!

On 12/03/10 07:57, Hussam Al-Tayeb wrote:

On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 14:59 -0600, Aaron Griffin wrote:

On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 2:19 PM, Dimitrios Apostolou<jimis@gmx.net> wrote:

My primary complaint against flyspray is that it doesn't allow comments to
be added after the bug is closed. The only way is by doing a request to
reopen the bug, and even in that case your comment is not added to the
comment list.

Wouldn't this functionality remedy the "closing bugs early" situation? Is it
supported in flyspray?


Commenting on bugs after they are closed will just annoy the
developer. If you have an issue with the fix or something, reopening
is the right action. If you have information to add, then add it to
the wiki, as THAT is the source of documentation, not flyspray



You should consider moving to bugzilla. mozilla and gnome use it. it's
an excellent bug tracker. I've used it to report literally hundreds or
gnome or mozilla bugs. not only is it easier on developers but it is
also better for users. flyspray is not as smart as bugzilla.
this won't work of course if there is no converter.


You seriously think bugzilla is easier to use? I think the only
advantage of moving to bugzilla is that we would get less bug reports as
the interface would put most people off. Since using Flyspray, I
really, really, really hate having to file bug reports in bugzilla
(which is why I encourage users to file bugs upstream).


Allan
 
Old 03-11-2010, 10:00 PM
Ng Oon-Ee
 
Default Bad attitude in flyspray again!

On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 22:49 +0100, Heiko Baums wrote:
> Am Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:59:07 -0600
> schrieb Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>:
>
> > Commenting on bugs after they are closed will just annoy the
> > developer. If you have an issue with the fix or something, reopening
> > is the right action. If you have information to add, then add it to
> > the wiki, as THAT is the source of documentation, not flyspray
>
> But the wiki is for documentations, not for comments on a bug report or
> closure.
>
> As long as it is possible to reopen a bug commenting on closed bugs is
> not necessary. But there are bug trackers which don't allow reopening
> but writing comments on closed bugs. I think this is a matter of taste.
>
> What's more important is, that bugs aren't closed at once without
> asking for more details and an answer of the reporter. I guess in most
> cases there's a reason why a bug is reported.
>
> Greetings,
> Heiko

Considering the trade-offs between:-
1. Allowing re-opening of bugs
2. Allowing comments on closed bugs
3. Bugs shouldn't be closed without a request for details.

I'd think 3 is much more sensible. 1. and 2. would just annoy the
developer assigned to the bug, and in my mind the 'closing' of a bug
should be basically a 'delete thread' operation. I guess it would be
good for a simple system where if a bug cannot be reproduced its
marked/commented as 'cannot reproduce, please provide proof/details' and
placed on a 7-day (arbitrary number) wait, where no more comments would
automatically close the bug.

Not sure if its possible with the backend though...
 
Old 03-11-2010, 10:58 PM
Aaron Griffin
 
Default Bad attitude in flyspray again!

2010/3/11 Ng Oon-Ee <ngoonee@gmail.com>:
> On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 22:49 +0100, Heiko Baums wrote:
>> Am Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:59:07 -0600
>> schrieb Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>:
>>
>> > Commenting on bugs after they are closed will just annoy the
>> > developer. If you have an issue with the fix or something, reopening
>> > is the right action. If you have information to add, then add it to
>> > the wiki, as THAT is the source of documentation, not flyspray
>>
>> But the wiki is for documentations, not for comments on a bug report or
>> closure.
>>
>> As long as it is possible to reopen a bug commenting on closed bugs is
>> not necessary. But there are bug trackers which don't allow reopening
>> but writing comments on closed bugs. I think this is a matter of taste.
>>
>> What's more important is, that bugs aren't closed at once without
>> asking for more details and an answer of the reporter. I guess in most
>> cases there's a reason why a bug is reported.
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Heiko
>
> Considering the trade-offs between:-
> 1. Allowing re-opening of bugs
> 2. Allowing comments on closed bugs
> 3. Bugs shouldn't be closed without a request for details.
>
> I'd think 3 is much more sensible. 1. and 2. would just annoy the
> developer assigned to the bug, and in my mind the 'closing' of a bug
> should be basically a 'delete thread' operation. I guess it would be
> good for a simple system where if a bug cannot be reproduced its
> marked/commented as 'cannot reproduce, please provide proof/details' and
> placed on a 7-day (arbitrary number) wait, where no more comments would
> automatically close the bug.
>
> Not sure if its possible with the backend though...

This sounds like throwing technology at a problem that basically boils
down to a communication issue.

Without specific examples, this isn't going to go anywhere, really.

Would someone mind linking to the bugs in question?
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 01:04 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org