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 > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 11-04-2010, 07:10 PM
Matt McCutchen
 
Default Marking zapped bugs

On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 09:38 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> The practical point is that F12
> is about to go EOL which means the bug must be closed...

Why? Obviously it needs to be clear that nothing further should be
expected from the maintainer unless/until the version is bumped. But
the project can choose to indicate that by closing the bugs as WONTFIX
or some other way, e.g., another resolution or by customizing Bugzilla
to show a notice on bugs that are open against an EOL version of Fedora.
Personally, I dislike the use of WONTFIX because philosophically I think
it doesn't fit, and practically it makes zapped bugs impossible to
distinguish from real WONTFIX bugs in searches
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=528319).

--
Matt

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 11-04-2010, 09:28 PM
Zing
 
Default Marking zapped bugs

On Thu, 04 Nov 2010 16:10:17 -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:

> On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 09:38 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> The practical point is that F12
>> is about to go EOL which means the bug must be closed...
>
> Why? Obviously it needs to be clear that nothing further should be
> expected from the maintainer unless/until the version is bumped. But
> the project can choose to indicate that by closing the bugs as WONTFIX
> or some other way, e.g., another resolution or by customizing Bugzilla
> to show a notice on bugs that are open against an EOL version of Fedora.
> Personally, I dislike the use of WONTFIX because philosophically I think
> it doesn't fit, and practically it makes zapped bugs impossible to
> distinguish from real WONTFIX bugs in searches
> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=528319).

This is my problem with the auto closing also. Leaving a bug open allows
a more dedicated maintainer to come along (even years later) and actually
fix or even apply patches that are still relevant without wasting time
with bugs that we're actually looked at and legitimately closed.


--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 11-05-2010, 06:14 AM
Alexander Kurtakov
 
Default Marking zapped bugs

> On Thu, 04 Nov 2010 16:10:17 -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 09:38 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >> The practical point is that F12
> >> is about to go EOL which means the bug must be closed...
> >
> > Why? Obviously it needs to be clear that nothing further should be
> > expected from the maintainer unless/until the version is bumped. But
> > the project can choose to indicate that by closing the bugs as WONTFIX
> > or some other way, e.g., another resolution or by customizing Bugzilla
> > to show a notice on bugs that are open against an EOL version of Fedora.
> > Personally, I dislike the use of WONTFIX because philosophically I think
> > it doesn't fit, and practically it makes zapped bugs impossible to
> > distinguish from real WONTFIX bugs in searches
> > (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=528319).
>
> This is my problem with the auto closing also. Leaving a bug open allows
> a more dedicated maintainer to come along (even years later) and actually
> fix or even apply patches that are still relevant without wasting time
> with bugs that we're actually looked at and legitimately closed.

Years later pretty much every bug will be irrelevant thanks to the underlying
changes that happen with every release and asking submitters to verify that
the bug is still there is the right way to go. After all 8 out of 10 abrt
submitted bugs against Eclipse stays months with questions and needinfo flags
and no response from submitters.
Note that I'm not saying these bugs shouldn't be submitted sometimes even just
because for the 2 submitters that answer questions but I definitely don't want
to waste my time closing the rest of them.
"Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's
lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. "
This is the best we can do no matter what we want to do!

P.S. Believe me having open bugs that both the packager and the submitter care
for are useless and these are the kind of bugs that get auto closed. If one of
them cares he will change the version flag. Oh and looking at a list of
hundreds bugs makes things close to impossible to put priorities, fix and
improve the situation.

Alexander Kurtakov
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 11-05-2010, 06:16 AM
Alexander Kurtakov
 
Default Marking zapped bugs

> > On Thu, 04 Nov 2010 16:10:17 -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 09:38 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > >> The practical point is that F12
> > >> is about to go EOL which means the bug must be closed...
> > >
> > > Why? Obviously it needs to be clear that nothing further should be
> > > expected from the maintainer unless/until the version is bumped. But
> > > the project can choose to indicate that by closing the bugs as WONTFIX
> > > or some other way, e.g., another resolution or by customizing Bugzilla
> > > to show a notice on bugs that are open against an EOL version of
> > > Fedora. Personally, I dislike the use of WONTFIX because
> > > philosophically I think it doesn't fit, and practically it makes
> > > zapped bugs impossible to distinguish from real WONTFIX bugs in
> > > searches
> > > (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=528319).
> >
> > This is my problem with the auto closing also. Leaving a bug open allows
> > a more dedicated maintainer to come along (even years later) and actually
> > fix or even apply patches that are still relevant without wasting time
> > with bugs that we're actually looked at and legitimately closed.
>
> Years later pretty much every bug will be irrelevant thanks to the
> underlying changes that happen with every release and asking submitters to
> verify that the bug is still there is the right way to go. After all 8 out
> of 10 abrt submitted bugs against Eclipse stays months with questions and
> needinfo flags and no response from submitters.
> Note that I'm not saying these bugs shouldn't be submitted sometimes even
> just because for the 2 submitters that answer questions but I definitely
> don't want to waste my time closing the rest of them.
> "Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's
> lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. "
> This is the best we can do no matter what we want to do!
>
> P.S. Believe me having open bugs that both the packager and the submitter
DON'T care for (sorry for the typo)

> care for are useless and these are the kind of bugs that get auto closed.
> If one of them cares he will change the version flag. Oh and looking at a
> list of hundreds bugs makes things close to impossible to put priorities,
> fix and improve the situation.
>
> Alexander Kurtakov
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 11-05-2010, 06:19 PM
Adam Williamson
 
Default Marking zapped bugs

On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 16:10 -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 09:38 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > The practical point is that F12
> > is about to go EOL which means the bug must be closed...
>
> Why? Obviously it needs to be clear that nothing further should be
> expected from the maintainer unless/until the version is bumped. But
> the project can choose to indicate that by closing the bugs as WONTFIX
> or some other way,

That's, um, exactly the process we're discussing here. We close all bugs
for a given release when that release goes EOL. (I forget what
resolution is used, it may well be WONTFIX). We send a warning note to
all bugs that will be closed under this process, a short while before
they're closed, so the reporters can check if they exist in a newer
version and bump the report to that version to keep it open, if they
like.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 11-05-2010, 09:59 PM
Zing
 
Default Marking zapped bugs

On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 09:14:08 +0200, Alexander Kurtakov wrote:

>> On Thu, 04 Nov 2010 16:10:17 -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:
>> > On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 09:38 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> >> The practical point is that F12
>> >> is about to go EOL which means the bug must be closed...
>> >
>> > Why? Obviously it needs to be clear that nothing further should be
>> > expected from the maintainer unless/until the version is bumped. But
>> > the project can choose to indicate that by closing the bugs as
>> > WONTFIX or some other way, e.g., another resolution or by customizing
>> > Bugzilla to show a notice on bugs that are open against an EOL
>> > version of Fedora. Personally, I dislike the use of WONTFIX because
>> > philosophically I think it doesn't fit, and practically it makes
>> > zapped bugs impossible to distinguish from real WONTFIX bugs in
>> > searches (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=528319).
>>
>> This is my problem with the auto closing also. Leaving a bug open
>> allows a more dedicated maintainer to come along (even years later) and
>> actually fix or even apply patches that are still relevant without
>> wasting time with bugs that we're actually looked at and legitimately
>> closed.
>
> Years later pretty much every bug will be irrelevant thanks to the
> underlying changes that happen with every release and asking submitters
> to verify that the bug is still there is the right way to go. After all
> 8 out of 10 abrt submitted bugs against Eclipse stays months with
> questions and needinfo flags and no response from submitters.
> Note that I'm not saying these bugs shouldn't be submitted sometimes
> even just because for the 2 submitters that answer questions but I
> definitely don't want to waste my time closing the rest of them.
> "Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's
> lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. "
> This is the best we can do no matter what we want to do!
>
> P.S. Believe me having open bugs that both the packager and the
> submitter care for are useless and these are the kind of bugs that get
> auto closed. If one of them cares he will change the version flag. Oh
> and looking at a list of hundreds bugs makes things close to impossible
> to put priorities, fix and improve the situation.

I understand what your saying. After some consideration, my issues are:

1. I don't respond to autobots.
2. If the maintainer doesn't care, I don't care. Thus I'm not gonna tick
of some version flag or something.

I think what would help moving forward, (without having to do away with
the autobots, which I welcome) is what Matt said... that the autobots did
not "CLOSE", but had some different status, such as: "AUTO-CLOSED".


--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 09-02-2011, 06:01 PM
Matt McCutchen
 
Default Marking zapped bugs

[Finally returning to this issue. If your mail client doesn't thread
across this time span, see
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-November/145105.html for the previous part of the thread.]

On Fri, 2010-11-05 at 12:19 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 16:10 -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 09:38 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > The practical point is that F12
> > > is about to go EOL which means the bug must be closed...
> >
> > Why? Obviously it needs to be clear that nothing further should be
> > expected from the maintainer unless/until the version is bumped. But
> > the project can choose to indicate that by closing the bugs as WONTFIX
> > or some other way,
>
> That's, um, exactly the process we're discussing here. We close all bugs
> for a given release when that release goes EOL. (I forget what
> resolution is used, it may well be WONTFIX).

The resolution is indeed WONTFIX.

> We send a warning note to
> all bugs that will be closed under this process, a short while before
> they're closed, so the reporters can check if they exist in a newer
> version and bump the report to that version to keep it open, if they
> like.

I'm well aware of the process. The principle behind it is that
maintainers are not expected to act on bugs that have not been
reproduced in a currently maintained version of Fedora, and such bugs
should be marked so that users know not to expect any action. I am not
disputing this.

However, the generally accepted definition of WONTFIX is that the bug
has at least some validity but the maintainer has decided not to address
it because the benefit fails to outweigh the cost (implementation and
maintenance effort + any negative side effects, to include going outside
the intended scope of the software). Zapping bugs by marking them
WONTFIX is semantically incorrect and makes then hard to distinguish
from bugs that meet the accepted definition of WONTFIX; it has also
seemed on some occasions to lead maintainers to abuse NOTABUG to mean
WONTFIX. Fedora is the only project I am aware of that does this.

I urge that bug zapping should be accomplished:

(1) With a different resolution, like Mozilla's EXPIRED (I can file the
bug against Red Hat Bugzilla), or

(2) Without mutating bugs in any way, but by publicizing that
non-FutureFeature bugs open against EOL Fedora versions are considered
expired and no action should be expected (GNOME seems to operate this
way informally). Optionally, Bugzilla could be customized to return the
resolution of such bugs as EXPIRED to facilitate the exclusion of
expired bugs from counts/queries of "open" bugs as desired.

> If we don't auto-close bugs we wind up with a huge pile of ancient bugs
> which just gets in the way of people who want to come along and actually
> clean up the bug list for a package. It's harder to do that if you're
> looking at reports from the Stone Age.

What you're really saying is that most maintainers want to work from a
list of unexpired bugs. But there are ways to achieve that other than
marking all the expired bugs WONTFIX. Maintainers can always filter on
the currently maintained Fedora versions, but it becomes tedious to
configure that, which is where a virtual EXPIRED resolution exposed by
Bugzilla would come in handy.

My broader point is that calling expired bugs closed is an
oversimplification, and possibly a disingenuously generous
interpretation of the situation. I'd guess that among non-ABRT bugs,
well over 50% of expired bugs are still valid two Fedora versions later.
But regardless of the figure, I believe that each client querying
Bugzilla should be allowed to decide whether or not to include expired
bugs, as distinguished from true closed bugs, based on its own needs.
By stuffing expired bugs into the WONTFIX category, Fedora is depriving
them of that choice.

[I am not on the list; please keep me in replies.]

--
Matt


--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 09-02-2011, 07:29 PM
Adam Williamson
 
Default Marking zapped bugs

On Fri, 2011-09-02 at 14:01 -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:

> What you're really saying is that most maintainers want to work from a
> list of unexpired bugs. But there are ways to achieve that other than
> marking all the expired bugs WONTFIX. Maintainers can always filter on
> the currently maintained Fedora versions, but it becomes tedious to
> configure that, which is where a virtual EXPIRED resolution exposed by
> Bugzilla would come in handy.

Mostly your proposal makes sense, but we're trying very hard to stick to
upstream Bugzilla since 3.x, as heavy customization of 2.x caused more
problems than it solved. So we're reluctant to add resolutions and
statuses that don't exist upstream - even if Mozilla have hacked up
their own copy of their own upstream bug reporting system to add
resolutions...

(if EXPIRED really exists in upstream bugzilla, that'd be a different
case.)
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 09-02-2011, 08:43 PM
Matt McCutchen
 
Default Marking zapped bugs

On Fri, 2011-09-02 at 12:29 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-09-02 at 14:01 -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:
>
> > What you're really saying is that most maintainers want to work from a
> > list of unexpired bugs. But there are ways to achieve that other than
> > marking all the expired bugs WONTFIX. Maintainers can always filter on
> > the currently maintained Fedora versions, but it becomes tedious to
> > configure that, which is where a virtual EXPIRED resolution exposed by
> > Bugzilla would come in handy.
>
> Mostly your proposal makes sense,

Thanks for the response.

> but we're trying very hard to stick to
> upstream Bugzilla since 3.x, as heavy customization of 2.x caused more
> problems than it solved. So we're reluctant to add resolutions and
> statuses that don't exist upstream - even if Mozilla have hacked up
> their own copy of their own upstream bug reporting system to add
> resolutions...

I don't buy that: Red Hat Bugzilla currently has 4 upstream resolutions
to 7 custom ones. Are all the custom resolutions actively being phased
out? Otherwise, can you give some examples to illustrate the marginal
harm likely to occur if an 8th custom resolution is added?

I'm disappointed that you don't appear to buy that this is important
enough to merit discussion of alternatives, rather than just raising a
problem with one of the ones I mentioned. The status quo may be fine
for a maintainer or triager going down a work list, but when I as a user
review old bugs related to a topic (perhaps to see whether a new bug is
merited or I should join an old one), "expired" is equivalent to NEW
rather than WONTFIX as far as I'm concerned, and it's annoying to have
to open each WONTFIX bug to determine which kind it is.

We have a number of options here which vary in implementation effort and
how much burden they impose on user and/or maintainer to get what they
want from an inadequate representation:

1. Status quo: hard to distinguish expired from WONTFIX.
2a. Add EXPIRED resolution and use it.
2b. Co-opt an existing little-used custom resolution, e.g., CANTFIX
(semantically questionable on its face, but maybe reasonable in light of
the explanation on
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/page.cgi?id=fields.html#status ).
3. Do not change the bug state, and have maintainers apply the same
conditions now used by the bug zapper on all of their searches.
Reducing mutable state is generally good in that it reduces the possible
ways for things to get out of whack. But then it takes more work to see
whether a non-CLOSED bug is expired.
3a. Like #3, but make it easier with a virtual EXPIRED resolution.
Probably an undesirable level of customization to Bugzilla.
4. Add an "Expired" keyword or custom field, use it, and:
4a. Continue to close the bugs WONTFIX. Ugh, but I can use the
keyword/field in search and maybe even get it to show as a column on
search results.
4b. Do not change the status, and have maintainers use the
keyword/field in their search.

No one should object to 4a as a change (though I recognize I am still
asking someone to do work, especially if existing bugs are to be
reclassified). We could start with that and at least stop losing the
data in the next bug zapping cycle.

I would appreciate your honest consideration (Adam and any other
relevant parties).

--
Matt

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 09-02-2011, 08:51 PM
Bill Nottingham
 
Default Marking zapped bugs

Matt McCutchen (matt@mattmccutchen.net) said:
> We have a number of options here which vary in implementation effort and
> how much burden they impose on user and/or maintainer to get what they
> want from an inadequate representation:
>
> 1. Status quo: hard to distinguish expired from WONTFIX.
> 2a. Add EXPIRED resolution and use it.
> 2b. Co-opt an existing little-used custom resolution, e.g., CANTFIX
> (semantically questionable on its face, but maybe reasonable in light of
> the explanation on
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/page.cgi?id=fields.html#status ).

This (using CANTFIX instead of WONTFIX) seems like the simplest
one to me.

Bill
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 02:37 AM.

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