Re: [arch-general] Bad attitude in flyspray again!
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Heiko Baums li...@baums-on-web.de wrote: Am Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:58:34 -0600 schrieb Aaron Griffin aaronmgrif...@gmail.com: So you wanted to add a comment totally unrelated to the bug itself to the bug? Isn't that polluting the bug report? What happened here is exactly what I'd expect - you contacted the developer. No, this is related to the bug This was take out of context. My original response was to a poster wanting to say where is the duplicate on a bug about xf86-intel-video. That's definitely unrelated
Re: [arch-general] Bad attitude in flyspray again!
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Heiko Baums li...@baums-on-web.de wrote: Am Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:58:34 -0600 schrieb Aaron Griffin aaronmgrif...@gmail.com: So you wanted to add a comment totally unrelated to the bug itself to the bug? Isn't that polluting the bug report? What happened here is exactly what I'd expect - you contacted the developer. No, this is related to the bug, because it was the same bug, only for a different package version. And such an information or the request for this information (the other bug's number) should be added to the comments, so that other people who've got this issue, too, and only find this closed bug can find the current open bug report. Otherwise everyone would need to contact the developer directly by e-mail which could be much more annoying for the developer than one or two additional comments to the closed bug report and wouldn't help other people. See the bug referenced and the final comment in the bug. It links to two upstream bug reports
Re: [arch-general] Bad attitude in flyspray again!
On 03/14/10 13:05, Aaron Griffin wrote: On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Heiko Baumsli...@baums-on-web.de wrote: Am Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:58:34 -0600 schrieb Aaron Griffinaaronmgrif...@gmail.com: So you wanted to add a comment totally unrelated to the bug itself to the bug? Isn't that polluting the bug report? What happened here is exactly what I'd expect - you contacted the developer. ... See the bug referenced and the final comment in the bug. It links to two upstream bug reports OK, so the thing is... *I* knew it was considered duplicate, because I'd gotten a private response from the developer saying so (via the annoyingly tiny reopen-request-box communication mechanism). But the publicly displayed bug-resolution said fixed in so-and-so package versions -- versions in which it wasn't fixed (the dev and I seem to agree). Any of the following would satisfy me: - I contact dev privately, dev switches resolution to closed - duplicate of upstream report - I or the dev adds a comment to the Arch bug-report that says the bug is closed because it's an upstream bug (see link). (The current final comment doesn't do this because it seems to say just, hi, these bugs might be related: quote of that comment: http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26266 Found more bugs that were posted here for example: http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14693 Sounds like some serious problems over there. - there are probably other resolutions that would be satisfying too. For example, I'd be fine with the bug being re-opened (since it's not fixed, even if it is an upstream xorg and/or kernel bug, and since it does make graphical Arch-Linux nigh unusable for some people, aside from hacky workarounds, and since it does/did interact with packaging decisions like whether to enable KMS by default). -Isaac
Re: [arch-general] Bad attitude in flyspray again!
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Heiko Baums li...@baums-on-web.de wrote: Am Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:58:12 -0600 schrieb Aaron Griffin aaronmgrif...@gmail.com: 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? I didn't give the links to these bug reports and the names of the concerned developers because I didn't want to offend anyone personally with this thread. I just wanted to say, that such things happened at least twice. That such an early closing bug can easily seem arrogant or ignorant. I know in the meantime that the developer didn't mean it. So I think discussing how to avoid such things in general would be better. And yes, in the last case, it was indeed a communication issue and some misunderstandings on the developers and on my side. But I would say that the communication concerns in these special cases are clarified. But those communication issues could be avoided with some of the proposals already made here in this thread. Commenting on closed bugs is not doable in Flyspray. More-over, I think it is a bad idea. The only reason people want commenting on closed bugs is so that they can argue with the developers - give reasons why the bug shouldn't be closed. That's what a reopen request is for. If that fails, then it's time to discuss it directly with the developer in question
Re: [arch-general] Bad attitude in flyspray again!
Hi, On Fri, 12 Mar 2010, Aaron Griffin wrote: Commenting on closed bugs is not doable in Flyspray. I didn't know it, thanks for the info! So I guess every argument from now on is just for the sake of completion... More-over, I think it is a bad idea. The only reason people want commenting on closed bugs is so that they can argue with the developers - give reasons why the bug shouldn't be closed. That's what a reopen request is for. If that fails, then it's time to discuss it directly with the developer in question Once, on another project, I filed a feature request on Flyspray. I also attached some measurements that showed how slow was the current way of doing things. After some monts the feature got implemented and the bug closed. I liked the feature, the program was much faster, and I wanted to attach measurements from the same machine that showed the difference. I didn't because I felt a reopen request would bother the developers. But even for true reopen requests, IMHO the request itself should be logged as a comment so that others can see it, and why it was rejected. Dimitris
Re: [arch-general] Bad attitude in flyspray again!
Am Fri, 12 Mar 2010 09:34:01 -0600 schrieb Aaron Griffin aaronmgrif...@gmail.com: Commenting on closed bugs is not doable in Flyspray. Commenting on closed bugs isn't necessary. This is a matter of taste. Some bug trackers allow this, some not. More-over, I think it is a bad idea. The only reason people want commenting on closed bugs is so that they can argue with the developers - give reasons why the bug shouldn't be closed. That's what a reopen request is for. If that fails, then it's time to discuss it directly with the developer in question And that's the problem. Bugs shouldn't be closed at once. Usually such discussions should be done in the comments of a bug report not directly with the developer. And closing a bug without giving the reporter the chance to give reasons why the bug shouldn't be closed can seem really arrogant and ignorant as it was in my case. And this can happen due to a simple mistake as it was in my case. The reopening request and its comment is not a solution, because the user is forced to begging. This is why I opened this thread. Commenting on closed bugs don't need to be implemented, but the reporter must be given the chance to answer without having to beg. The best solution in my sight is that the developer first writes a normal comment that he can't reproduce it and ask for more details. Probably the developer can tell the reporter which information he needs. This should be done without closing the bug. If the reporter doesn't answer in a reasonable time, or the reporter confirms that the bug is invalid or there are other reasons for closing this bug the bug can still be closed. If the developer closes a bug he should first give the reason for closing the bug in a normal comment. This is where Ng Oon-Ee's suggestion comes into play to make it a bit easier for the developer, if this is possible with flyspray: 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. But just closing a bug should not be done. There's usually a reason why a bug is reported even if it's invalid. Greetings, Heiko
Re: [arch-general] Bad attitude in flyspray again!
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Heiko Baums li...@baums-on-web.de wrote: But just closing a bug should not be done. There's usually a reason why a bug is reported even if it's invalid. Seriously, present some examples here, this talking in the abstract is stupid. We're all grown ups, no one is going to have their feelings hurt. Without them I'm sick of the back and forth on this- most devs leave bugs open for more than long enough to get feedback (and don't get it!), and we would all rather have bugs be either fixed or closed than hang around forever. -Dan
Re: [arch-general] Bad attitude in flyspray again!
On Fri 12 Mar 2010 09:34 -0600, Aaron Griffin wrote: Commenting on closed bugs is not doable in Flyspray. More-over, I think it is a bad idea. The only reason people want commenting on closed bugs is so that they can argue with the developers - give reasons why the bug shouldn't be closed. That's what a reopen request is for. If that fails, then it's time to discuss it directly with the developer in question That's not always true. There have been instances where I've commented on closed bugs to point at an alternative solution or note where the bug had been fixed where the developer neglected to.
Re: [arch-general] Bad attitude in flyspray again!
On Fri 12 Mar 2010 13:28 -0600, Dan McGee wrote: On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Heiko Baums li...@baums-on-web.de wrote: But just closing a bug should not be done. There's usually a reason why a bug is reported even if it's invalid. Seriously, present some examples here, this talking in the abstract is stupid. We're all grown ups, no one is going to have their feelings hurt. Without them I'm sick of the back and forth on this- most devs leave bugs open for more than long enough to get feedback (and don't get it!), and we would all rather have bugs be either fixed or closed than hang around forever. I think another problem is that the bug wranglers aren't necessarily involved in development and don't communicate with the developers before taking action on a bug. That's no fault of the developer, but is a fault with the bug wrangler.
Re: [arch-general] Bad attitude in flyspray again!
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Loui Chang louipc@gmail.com wrote: On Fri 12 Mar 2010 13:28 -0600, Dan McGee wrote: On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Heiko Baums li...@baums-on-web.de wrote: But just closing a bug should not be done. There's usually a reason why a bug is reported even if it's invalid. Seriously, present some examples here, this talking in the abstract is stupid. We're all grown ups, no one is going to have their feelings hurt. Without them I'm sick of the back and forth on this- most devs leave bugs open for more than long enough to get feedback (and don't get it!), and we would all rather have bugs be either fixed or closed than hang around forever. I think another problem is that the bug wranglers aren't necessarily involved in development and don't communicate with the developers before taking action on a bug. That's no fault of the developer, but is a fault with the bug wrangler. Err? This sounds like quite a broad generalization without specific examples. Do *you* have any examples you'd like to share?
Re: [arch-general] Bad attitude in flyspray again!
On Fri 12 Mar 2010 14:11 -0600, Aaron Griffin wrote: On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Loui Chang louipc@gmail.com wrote: On Fri 12 Mar 2010 13:28 -0600, Dan McGee wrote: On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Heiko Baums li...@baums-on-web.de wrote: But just closing a bug should not be done. There's usually a reason why a bug is reported even if it's invalid. Seriously, present some examples here, this talking in the abstract is stupid. We're all grown ups, no one is going to have their feelings hurt. Without them I'm sick of the back and forth on this- most devs leave bugs open for more than long enough to get feedback (and don't get it!), and we would all rather have bugs be either fixed or closed than hang around forever. I think another problem is that the bug wranglers aren't necessarily involved in development and don't communicate with the developers before taking action on a bug. That's no fault of the developer, but is a fault with the bug wrangler. Err? This sounds like quite a broad generalization without specific examples. Do *you* have any examples you'd like to share? Sure. On occasion Paul Mattal will close or edit bugs in the AUR bug tracker. He's no longer involved in development and hasn't communicated with me about any of the tickets he touches.
Re: [arch-general] Bad attitude in flyspray again!
Commenting on closed bugs is not doable in Flyspray. Actually it is doable, it's a configuration option per project. Check http://bugs.archlinux.org/pm/proj1/prefs More-over, I think it is a bad idea. The only reason people want commenting on closed bugs is so that they can argue with the developers assuming malicious users up-front? - give reasons why the bug shouldn't be closed. That's what a reopen request is for. If that fails, then it's time to discuss it directly with the developer in question I see at least several good uses of allowing comments on closed bugs, sometimes even adding aditional reasons why the bug needs to *stay closed*. -- damjan
Re: [arch-general] Bad attitude in flyspray again!
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Damjan Georgievski gdam...@gmail.com wrote: Commenting on closed bugs is not doable in Flyspray. Actually it is doable, it's a configuration option per project. Check http://bugs.archlinux.org/pm/proj1/prefs More-over, I think it is a bad idea. The only reason people want commenting on closed bugs is so that they can argue with the developers assuming malicious users up-front? - give reasons why the bug shouldn't be closed. That's what a reopen request is for. If that fails, then it's time to discuss it directly with the developer in question I see at least several good uses of allowing comments on closed bugs, sometimes even adding aditional reasons why the bug needs to *stay closed*. Thanks. I just turned this on for the pacman bug tracker because I do find comments after closing a feature that is a net positive (with some trolling drawbacks, of course). -Dan
Re: [arch-general] Bad attitude in flyspray again!
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010, Dan McGee wrote: On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Damjan Georgievski gdam...@gmail.com wrote: Commenting on closed bugs is not doable in Flyspray. Actually it is doable, it's a configuration option per project. Check http://bugs.archlinux.org/pm/proj1/prefs More-over, I think it is a bad idea. The only reason people want commenting on closed bugs is so that they can argue with the developers assuming malicious users up-front? - give reasons why the bug shouldn't be closed. That's what a reopen request is for. If that fails, then it's time to discuss it directly with the developer in question I see at least several good uses of allowing comments on closed bugs, sometimes even adding aditional reasons why the bug needs to *stay closed*. Thanks. I just turned this on for the pacman bug tracker because I do find comments after closing a feature that is a net positive (with some trolling drawbacks, of course). Me thanks! I think it will generally be positive. And in any case you can turn it back off if it's abused. Dimitris -Dan
Re: [arch-general] Bad attitude in flyspray again!
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Damjan Georgievski gdam...@gmail.com wrote: Commenting on closed bugs is not doable in Flyspray. Actually it is doable, it's a configuration option per project. Check http://bugs.archlinux.org/pm/proj1/prefs Well damn, looks like I was looking too high up.
Re: [arch-general] Bad attitude in flyspray again!
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Damjan Georgievski gdam...@gmail.com wrote: More-over, I think it is a bad idea. The only reason people want commenting on closed bugs is so that they can argue with the developers assuming malicious users up-front? Not at all. It is statistics. For a long time before the bug wranglers, I personally had to deal with 75% of the Project Manager requests from flyspray. These were all reopen requests, and many of them arguing with the actual choice a developer made. Something like: Developer: Won't Implement. We want patch in features like this Reopen #1: But it's a good feature and upstream says it will be included soon! Me: Deny. He said he won't implement. Wait for upstream Reopen #2: This should totally be done. Without this patch Arch Linux sucks! Me: Deny
Re: [arch-general] Bad attitude in flyspray again!
On 03/12/10 10:34, Aaron Griffin wrote: More-over, I think it is a bad idea. The only reason people want commenting on closed bugs is so that they can argue with the developers - give reasons why the bug shouldn't be closed. That's what a reopen request is for. If that fails, then it's time to discuss it directly with the developer in question Okay, here's my example (of a different reason to comment on a closed bug). I found bug #18022 that affected me, http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/18022 . It was marked closed with Reason for closing: Fixed Additional comments about closing: Assuming fixed with libdrm 2.4.17-4 + xf86-video-intel 2.10.0-1. I requested to re-open, saying that I was running libdrm 2.4.17-4 and xf86-video-intel 2.10.0-1 and it was not fixed with those versions. I got an e-mail response from FlySpray saying that the assigned-to person (JGC) denied my request, with the justification being There's already an open bug for this. I didn't see any obvious polite way to respond ( -- which is a Flyspray issue. See below for what I did next/why.). Replying in another re-open request seemed rude. If bug #18022 was a duplicate, I couldn't see anywhere on the bug that said *which* open bug it was a duplicate of, so I couldn't go make a comment there instead. Also, I searched, and in my judgment no other bug in bugs.archlinux.org besides #18022 seemed to quite match my symptoms. Also, I could have opened yet another bug, but that seemed rude. (Also, it's an upstream bug, albeit a bug that makes one's machine unusable, so it isn't even one that I'd submit to Arch. But, the bug existed in bugs.archlinux.org with inaccurate information that would bother future bug seekers/reporters, so I wanted it to be marked some way that's accurate, and would have liked to update it with my progress at reporting the bug upstream.) So I poked around and found JGC's email address according to bugs.archlinux.org and e-mailed in response (although I didn't get a response to my e-mail, so I don't know if it got to JGC successfully). I wrote to JGC: (I hope e-mailing your archlinux address is an okay way to reply, since your reply to my reopen-request didn't appear anywhere on the Web that I could find) If this bug is a duplicate, can you mark it as such, and say clearly which bug it is a duplicate of? All I want to do is to leave a comment about my progress reporting the bug upstream, so that other people who search and find this archlinux bug will be less confused... This text is also a bit confusing given that the described bug is not fixed, (nor even affected by upgrading to the mentioned versions) Reason for closing: Fixed Additional comments about closing: Assuming fixed with libdrm 2.4.17-4 + xf86-video-intel 2.10.0-1. thanks? -Isaac
Re: [arch-general] Bad attitude in flyspray again!
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 5:48 PM, Isaac Dupree m...@isaac.cedarswampstudios.org wrote: On 03/12/10 10:34, Aaron Griffin wrote: More-over, I think it is a bad idea. The only reason people want commenting on closed bugs is so that they can argue with the developers - give reasons why the bug shouldn't be closed. That's what a reopen request is for. If that fails, then it's time to discuss it directly with the developer in question Okay, here's my example (of a different reason to comment on a closed bug). I found bug #18022 that affected me, http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/18022 . It was marked closed with Reason for closing: Fixed Additional comments about closing: Assuming fixed with libdrm 2.4.17-4 + xf86-video-intel 2.10.0-1. I requested to re-open, saying that I was running libdrm 2.4.17-4 and xf86-video-intel 2.10.0-1 and it was not fixed with those versions. I got an e-mail response from FlySpray saying that the assigned-to person (JGC) denied my request, with the justification being There's already an open bug for this. I didn't see any obvious polite way to respond ( -- which is a Flyspray issue. See below for what I did next/why.). Replying in another re-open request seemed rude. If bug #18022 was a duplicate, I couldn't see anywhere on the bug that said *which* open bug it was a duplicate of, so I couldn't go make a comment there instead. Also, I searched, and in my judgment no other bug in bugs.archlinux.org besides #18022 seemed to quite match my symptoms. Also, I could have opened yet another bug, but that seemed rude. (Also, it's an upstream bug, albeit a bug that makes one's machine unusable, so it isn't even one that I'd submit to Arch. But, the bug existed in bugs.archlinux.org with inaccurate information that would bother future bug seekers/reporters, so I wanted it to be marked some way that's accurate, and would have liked to update it with my progress at reporting the bug upstream.) So I poked around and found JGC's email address according to bugs.archlinux.org and e-mailed in response (although I didn't get a response to my e-mail, so I don't know if it got to JGC successfully). I wrote to JGC: (I hope e-mailing your archlinux address is an okay way to reply, since your reply to my reopen-request didn't appear anywhere on the Web that I could find) If this bug is a duplicate, can you mark it as such, and say clearly which bug it is a duplicate of? All I want to do is to leave a comment about my progress reporting the bug upstream, so that other people who search and find this archlinux bug will be less confused... This text is also a bit confusing given that the described bug is not fixed, (nor even affected by upgrading to the mentioned versions) Reason for closing: Fixed Additional comments about closing: Assuming fixed with libdrm 2.4.17-4 + xf86-video-intel 2.10.0-1. thanks? -Isaac So you wanted to add a comment totally unrelated to the bug itself to the bug? Isn't that polluting the bug report? What happened here is exactly what I'd expect - you contacted the developer. Now, if it was difficult to find the email addresses, that's very different and something we SHOULD fix.
Re: [arch-general] Bad attitude in flyspray again!
Am Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:38:36 -0600 schrieb Aaron Griffin aaronmgrif...@gmail.com: Not at all. It is statistics. For a long time before the bug wranglers, I personally had to deal with 75% of the Project Manager requests from flyspray. These were all reopen requests, and many of them arguing with the actual choice a developer made. Something like: Developer: Won't Implement. We want patch in features like this Reopen #1: But it's a good feature and upstream says it will be included soon! Me: Deny. He said he won't implement. Wait for upstream Reopen #2: This should totally be done. Without this patch Arch Linux sucks! Me: Deny This is slightly different. In this case the developer and you have given the reason for not implementing it, because you as downstream don't want to add a feature by patching the package. This is common and well known Arch policy. And this was not a bug report but a feature request. In my case - I still don't give the links. I don't want to blame a certain developer and I actually don't want to keep on at this certain issue. - a program has worked perfectly in the previous version. After the latest update it didn't work anymore, it was almost completely unusable, without changing the configuration. So it's most likely a bug, and I of course have searched the forums, wiki and the web before reporting the bug. The bug was closed as works for me without giving a reason as far as I remember (those comments are not added to the normal comments - should be changed). Something similar already happened with another bug. How do I understand it? What was my reaction? I felt being ignored by the developer. And that's why I sent a reopening request with a not quite friendly comment. Then this reopening request was denied with another unfriendly comment. How do I understand this? What's my reaction? The developer doesn't take my bugs (problems) seriously, isn't willing to look more precisely at the bug, doesn't care if a software is unusable etc. So from my (the reporter's) point of view it's just arrogant and ignorant. In the meantime I know that this all have been misunderstandings. The developer hasn't read my bug report precisely enough and thought that it was again such a bug report where the user hasn't configured his system correctly. I have missed, that my reopening request was denied by another developer to whom the bug wasn't assigned. And I of course know, that the developer in fact wasn't ignorant and arrogant. He rather looked again into this bug and found the problem. This all could have been avoided, if the bug hadn't been closed so early without giving me the chance to respond with a normal comment and if the reopening request would have been answered only by the developer to whom it was assigned. Such misunderstandings can always happen. And such reactions can be prevented by first writing a comment that the developer can't reproduce the bug and asking for more details, or asking if the reporter is sure that he already searched the forums, or whatever. Then I wouldn't have felt being ignored and would have explained in a much friendlier manner why I'm sure that this is a bug and not a configuration issue. I'm not talking about such conversations you mentioned above. But such conversations couldn't completely be avoided. Even if such bug reports can be annoying, a developer shouldn't first think about such users who don't read the documentations, search the forums, want other people to do the user's work, reports invalid bug reports etc. when reading a bug report. And - I repeat myself - think about how the reporter will understand it. So better keep bugs reports open a bit longer than closing them too early. I'm telling this again, because I just want to explain the user's/reporter's point of view, and that such cases could be at least reduced. Just think about it. ;-) Greetings, Heiko
Re: [arch-general] Bad attitude in flyspray again!
Am Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:58:34 -0600 schrieb Aaron Griffin aaronmgrif...@gmail.com: So you wanted to add a comment totally unrelated to the bug itself to the bug? Isn't that polluting the bug report? What happened here is exactly what I'd expect - you contacted the developer. No, this is related to the bug, because it was the same bug, only for a different package version. And such an information or the request for this information (the other bug's number) should be added to the comments, so that other people who've got this issue, too, and only find this closed bug can find the current open bug report. Otherwise everyone would need to contact the developer directly by e-mail which could be much more annoying for the developer than one or two additional comments to the closed bug report and wouldn't help other people. It would of course be still better if the developer would give the bug number of the current bug to which he refers directly. Greetings, Heiko
Re: [arch-general] 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
Re: [arch-general] Bad attitude in flyspray again!
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 2:19 PM, Dimitrios Apostolou ji...@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
Re: [arch-general] Bad attitude in flyspray again!
Am Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:59:07 -0600 schrieb Aaron Griffin aaronmgrif...@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
Re: [arch-general] Bad attitude in flyspray again!
Am Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:19:46 +0200 (GTB Standard Time) schrieb Dimitrios Apostolou ji...@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
Re: [arch-general] 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 ji...@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.
Re: [arch-general] Bad attitude in flyspray again!
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 16:57, Hussam Al-Tayeb ht990...@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.
Re: [arch-general] 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 Apostolouji...@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
Re: [arch-general] 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 aaronmgrif...@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...
Re: [arch-general] Bad attitude in flyspray again!
2010/3/11 Ng Oon-Ee ngoo...@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 aaronmgrif...@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?
Re: [arch-general] Bad attitude in flyspray again!
Am Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:58:12 -0600 schrieb Aaron Griffin aaronmgrif...@gmail.com: 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? I didn't give the links to these bug reports and the names of the concerned developers because I didn't want to offend anyone personally with this thread. I just wanted to say, that such things happened at least twice. That such an early closing bug can easily seem arrogant or ignorant. I know in the meantime that the developer didn't mean it. So I think discussing how to avoid such things in general would be better. And yes, in the last case, it was indeed a communication issue and some misunderstandings on the developers and on my side. But I would say that the communication concerns in these special cases are clarified. But those communication issues could be avoided with some of the proposals already made here in this thread. Greetings, Heiko
