On 2007/05/14 14:47 (GMT+0200) Stefan Hundhammer apparently typed: > As for others who raised the question if we get paid by the number of bug > reports we get rid of: No. That would obviously not make any sense, too.
That was me, becomes sometimes the explanations given to rationalize a reclassification of wontfix make it seem like there could be no other true explanation. > But Bugzilla is an important tool for us. So it makes sense for us to resolve > issues that can easily be resolved before they clutter our list of active > bugs too much. Dealing with clutter is an issue itself. It's nice and simple just to eliminate it, but sometimes dealing with it in another manner is more prudent. Fussing over clutter here is majoring in minors. > It's also a question of honesty. While we could accumulate a large number of > bugs and pretend that we will fix them at some point, wouldn't you rather > have us be honest and clearly say if an issue does not have the slightest > chance of getting fixed in a forseeable time frame? I think there are different ways to deal with the priorities, and the finality of the WONTFIX classification (e.g. "will never be fixed") is sometimes going just a bit too far. Each bug has a "Priority" field. I don't file bugs often enough to remember, but I believe this field is left blank by default in Novell's Bugzilla so that the assignee or his superior can give it one. It seems reasonable to use the priority field for its intended purpose. A selection that indicates no or minimal priority on bugs that should or might be fixable and Novell would like to see fixed but that Novell considers either too obscure or too difficult given current conditions to actively pursue for the foreseeable future can be a better way to handle many bugs. IOW, some bugs should be left open instead of resolved (wontfix), even if for no other reason (for some of them) to indicate a known issue. Upstream support or a dependency that previously wasn't there might arrive that changes the ease or time requirement from difficult or impossible to something better. Or a new resource might become available for which working particular bug(s) might be well suited. Mozilla.org doesn't wontfix bugs just because they're hard to fix or nobody with time to do so wants to do so. But, often on Novell's Bugzilla that's exactly what it looks like is happening. Further, it (still) has that smell, because as often happens when some big company (e.g. Novell) buys some other company (e.g. SUSE), the "we bought this to make money with it" acquisition management attitude generally brings with it cutbacks (economizing - e.g. fewer programmers than the acquired company had when purchased). If SUSE is truly OpenSUSE, then inadequate resources within Novell should not routinely be justification to use "resource availability insufficient" to justify a wontfix classification. I think it is more honest to leave a bug open, as long as it has a realistic priority level affixed, that development team management would even minimally like to see fixed, than to have the permanancy of "will never be fixed" stamped on an ostensibly worthy and possibly fixable bug. -- "The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, shining ever brighter till the full light of day." Proverbs 4:18 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
