On 03/13/2010 04:58 AM, Pierre Schmitz wrote:

Am Samstag, 13. März 2010 01:58:02 schrieb Dan McGee:

I've often wanted to add comments to closed issues in the past and
have been unable to. For things like a performance bug, it is often
helpful a few days down the road to post results of the fix once a few
people have tested it. It doesn't make sense to leave the bug open if
it is fixed in git, but many people that followed the bug would find
it interesting.


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.

But as we don't know which of these cases occur more often we could just
enable that feature for a month and decide afterwards.


I thought seriously about this point, but came out on the other side of
it-- I'm fine with people doing a reopen request to add an extra comment
when that comes up. I expect it's few cases, compared to the number of
bugs I now look at in a month, and if it starts occurring so much that
it's annoying to those of us wrangling with the bugs, we can turn on
post-close comments.


- P

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.

On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 16:35 -0600, Aaron Griffin wrote:
> Does anyone have an opinion on this?
>
> In my eyes, I imagine the kind of people who want this feature simply
> wish to argue about the closing. I've had to deal with enough PM
> requests in the past to know that this _does_ happen.
>
> Opinions?

I would like to have the opposite option: leave the bug open, but
disable comments. A lot of users only post "me too" messages, which
doesn't give any additional information and makes the bugreport useless
for us and others hitting it using google.

On 03/12/2010 06:20 PM, Heiko Baums wrote:
> Am Sat, 13 Mar 2010 08:39:05 +1000
> schrieb Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org>:
>
>> I really do not see the need.
>>
>> If a bug is wrongly closed -> request a reopen.
>> If you just want to confirm a bug has been fixed, there is no need...
>> we already closed the bug report.
>> If there is a "better" fix, reopen request or new bug report.
>
> And this is forcing the reporter to begging for reopening and looking
> again at the bug.
>
> Closing a bug too early can in the reporter's sight mean: "Hey! I'm the
> king and I decide if I'm willing to fix the bug. And if I don't want
> to, then you don't have to say anything. Your subject to my merci."
>
> Of course this is a bit exaggerated and of course in most cases the
> developer doesn't mean it, but this is how the reporter can easily
> understand it. And this can lead to such misunderstandings and to angry
> reactions.
>
> Don't see this only from your (the developer's) point of view. Try to
> see it from the reporter's point of view.
>
> Greetings,
> Heiko
>

This is currently the state at opensuse and KDE and is a primary reason for all
the new Arch users and all the new users of xfce, fluxbox and gnome.

We are all in this together. One of the things that makes a distro great in the
eyes of the user is reasonably friendly and open devs. That is one thing I liked
about Arch. It is worth continuing.

If a user is doing something that is annoying to the developers, and ounce of
explanation can go a long way. If for example some user has repeatedly attempted
to reopen a bug for improper reasons, then a kind, but firm, explanation can do
wonders to accomplish the goals for all involved. Something like:

"The addition of patch xyz has be discussed among the team and it has been
decided against for a,b,c reason. We have your request and if it provides an
advantage in the future, it may be incorporated. Currently, you are welcome to
incorporate it in you system through the ABS or AUR system."

Many times the dev/user interactions seem hostile or combative when all the user
is doing is to try and help make Arch better. Taking an extra few seconds to
give enough of an explanation as to why a decision was made the way it was can
eliminate 95% of any misunderstanding. (the other 5% are just nuts who will
never be made happy :-)

Arch has a great thing going and from what I can tell is headed in the right
direction, we should all work hard to keep it going in the same direction.
Maintaining a positive user/dev relationship of trust and respect is a big part
of that.

--
David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.
Rankin Law Firm, PLLC
510 Ochiltree Street
Nacogdoches, Texas 75961
Telephone: (936) 715-9333
Facsimile: (936) 715-9339
www.rankinlawfirm.com

On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 04:32:20PM -0600, David C. Rankin wrote:

> This is currently the state at opensuse and KDE and is a primary reason for all
> the new Arch users and all the new users of xfce, fluxbox and gnome.
>
> We are all in this together. One of the things that makes a distro great in the
> eyes of the user is reasonably friendly and open devs. That is one thing I liked
> about Arch. It is worth continuing.
>
> If a user is doing something that is annoying to the developers, and ounce of
> explanation can go a long way. If for example some user has repeatedly attempted
> to reopen a bug for improper reasons, then a kind, but firm, explanation can do
> wonders to accomplish the goals for all involved.

I couldn't agree more.

The purpose of all 'ticket' based systems - help lines,
public services, bug trackers, whatever - is to replace
normal human interaction by some 'documented procedure'.
They are as easily abused in either direction as what
they try to replace, and the result when this happens
is worse than it would otherwise be. (*)

A dev/maintainer not paying attention and rejecting a
bug report without having really understood it has no
more excuse than the typical troller. Even less.
Assuming a dev/maintainer position is a free choice in
our world, and as with every free choice it is assumed
you accept the responsabilities and inconveniences.

(*) What else would you expect from something invented
by MBA types.

Ciao,

--
FA

O tu, che porte, correndo si ?
E guerra e morte !

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

Am Sat, 13 Mar 2010 16:32:20 -0600
schrieb "David C. Rankin" <drankinatty@suddenlinkmail.com>:

> This is currently the state at opensuse and KDE and is a primary
> reason for all the new Arch users and all the new users of xfce,
> fluxbox and gnome.

There also may be some other reasons for all the new Arch users. ;-)

> Arch has a great thing going and from what I can tell is headed in
> the right direction, we should all work hard to keep it going in the
> same direction. Maintaining a positive user/dev relationship of trust
> and respect is a big part of that.

If I would find that the Arch community and the Arch developers are
generally unfriendly, arrogant or ignorant, I just would wipe my hard
disk and install a different distro.

I've also written, that in my cases I had the impression that the early
bug closing was arrogant and ignorant. This was of course a
misunderstanding as I know in the meantime.

I know, I repeat myself - I opened this thread to express my
impressions I had regarding these certain bug reports and in the hope
that the devs think about this and won't close bugs too early in the
future, and that probably can be discussed some ways how to reduce such
misunderstandings and to improve the user/dev communication.

Of course the users shouldn't write such "me, too" comments if they
don't provide additional informations which help fixing the bug.

And I think this thread became a quite substantial discussion with some
pretty good arguments and suggestions.

Heiko

There is already an arch-general thread about this topic. This one was
intended to gauge the opinions of the _developers_ (hence the reason
it was on the dev list).

I am all for keeping things open, but polluting things with arguments
from outside is just making this harder. And now this discussion is
going to be made private, to keep out the outside comments so that we
can get a better grasp of the situation.


Mr Heiko, I know you feel you have a vested interest in this topic,
but you're just adding useless noise to the discussion. This is quite
ironic as this is EXACTLY what you claim will not happen were we to
allow comments on closed bugs.

Cheers

Am Mon, 15 Mar 2010 10:33:48 -0600
schrieb Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>:

> Mr Heiko, I know you feel you have a vested interest in this topic,
> but you're just adding useless noise to the discussion. This is quite
> ironic as this is EXACTLY what you claim will not happen were we to
> allow comments on closed bugs.

I don't think that I'm adding useless noise. I said what I thought
about how some of my bugs have been handled, how this is taken by me
and that I was quite angry about that. And I gave arguments and also
suggestions. And of course I respond to some e-mails or another.

And my concerns are not about comments on closed bugs. This was only
one of many suggestions other people made to reduce such
misunderstandings and to improve the bug handling.

Other good suggestions and alternatives have been mentioned, too, also
by other people. But I think many good ideas have been given.

What I wish is just, that bugs will be taken more seriously even if
there are some invalid bug reports which are caused by a wrong
configuration and even if some bug reports are written by users with a
not so good knowledge. This can't be avoided anyway.

I generally don't care how this is done, if it's done by commenting on
closed bugs, by the possibility on reopen bugs at once without sending
a request or whatever. My wish is, that the reporter first get's a
chance to respond and give more details before a bug is closed as
"works for me" or the like. And if a bug is closed the reason for
closing should first be given in a comment.

Any other things are just technical details which can help for a better
bug handling.

And I think that it can't hurt if you also listen to the user's
arguments and discuss with the users instead of telling them that their
comments are useless noise. One more point which let me doubt of the
user-friendliness of not all but at least some (most likely only a few)
developers.

Of course the technical details about the actual implementation of some
features can be discussed private between the developers.

I have indeed read these statements from developers: "Arch is/was from
developers for developers", "the developers only maintain, what they
want", and that they don't like or care about the "normal" users very
much.

And that's just not what I'm used to from other distros.

And don't mistake it. I don't say that every developer is like this.
And I don't say that Arch is bad, that the developers are unfriendly
and not helpful in general, don't make good jobs, etc. But this had to
be said.

I think becoming a bit more open-minded towards the users would be more
important than discussing about commenting on closed bugs which could
be done nevertheless.

Heiko