Re: Who can close BZs?
Hi, well ... I don't want to say I don't appreciate any work to make Fedora better, but in this case, I think you just haven't done it properly please take the following just as another point of view, a bit of teasing Dne pátek, 6. prosince 2013 21:07:03 CEST, Chris Murphy napsal(a): On Dec 6, 2013, at 10:31 AM, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1038885 Closed the first time because it's not an F20 bug. As mentioned in bug 864198 it's intended behavior. the fact that some behaviour is intended doesn't mean that it is correct and that it should stay that way forever in fact, this exact behaviour _should_ change in the future, so it is nice that someone created a bugzilla record to track the future change - the mere existence of bug 864198 doesn't make bug 1038885 superfluous, as bug 864198 is about grubby behaviour and bug 1038885 should have tracked the change in anaconda "it's not a F20 bug" is not a reason to close, if F20 is not the target, instead of closing, you should have changed the target to rawhide (and added RFE, FutureFeature or whatever marking the anaconda team prefers) after all, bug 1039124 is marked as such, so why this couldn't have been done for bug 1038885? Also closed because the summary ... so, what prevented you from fixing the summary? - still not a reason to close I'd always intended to create a clearly described and explicit rawhide RFE tracking bug for the issue, "intention" unfortunately does not count, so someone was faster than you to file the issue ... if you still preferred to do it your way, you could have said that explicitly instead of telling the reporter he's doing something incorrectly and you don't have the time to bother with his help the reporter simply does not know what your preferred workflow/bug description and markings are, and reporting what does he experience _in his own words_ is not incorrect by definition, that's what bugzilla is for (among other things) and it was impossible to clean up and change your bug into that without requiring the reader to read 7 comments that have nothing to do with actually progressing the real problems. with the subject corrected, I don't think that anyone would have to read *the description* to see what "the real problem" is also note that I say "the description" instead "7 comments" as the comment number one is from you, you could have fixed the bug summary, version etc. at that time, ranting about seven useless comments now is unfair, a fallacy and believe it or not, some people are interested in real-life usecases, so they find even the "incorrect" description written by the user valuable There are issues with grub2 and os-prober that also need to be addressed for certain use cases. I do not see any grub2 and os-prober bugs in the dependency chain ... would that "intention" change into action only after someone will file two more "incorrect" bugs? K. -- Karel Volný QE BaseOs/Daemons Team Red Hat Czech, Brno tel. +420 532294274 (RH: +420 532294111 ext. 8262074) xmpp ka...@jabber.cz :: "Never attribute to malice what can :: easily be explained by stupidity." -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
RE: Who can close BZs?
> Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 15:58:41 + > From: johan...@gmail.com > To: test@lists.fedoraproject.org > Subject: Re: Who can close BZs? > > > On 12/06/2013 03:56 PM, Karel Volný wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > Dne pátek, 6. prosince 2013 16:19:35 CEST, Clyde E. Kunkel napsal(a): > >> Is there a policy or other guidance on who is allowed to close > >> another persons bz? For example, can a person who is not a member of > >> the action developer or bugzappers group close a bz, especially a > >> non-trivial bz? > > > > well, anyone with the appropriate permissions (even some robots)? > > > > while a formal policy could be nice, I guess it is better not to > > complicate the rules ... anyone helping to clean the mess in bugzilla > > is welcome; if someone has a few spare cycles and notices something > > could be closed, why not to do it instead of the overloaded developer? > > > > - if you think that some bug has been closed improperly, let's talk > > about that concrete case and not about policies > > > > FYI I'm pretty sure RH bugzilla admin frown upon giving Fedora QA > community members those privileges... > > JBG As an aside, I had those priveleges for years before I started working at Red Hat. John. -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Who can close BZs?
On 06.12.2013 22:22, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Fri, 2013-12-06 at 13:14 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: >> and engineers tend not to be fans of efficiency >> over unnecessary discussion. > > As you may have guessed, I trapped myself between two different drafts > of that clause :) Should read 'tend to be fans...', of course. > It's not a coincidence. poma I’m coming home I’m coming home tell the World I’m coming home -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Who can close BZs?
On Fri, 2013-12-06 at 13:14 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > and engineers tend not to be fans of efficiency > over unnecessary discussion. As you may have guessed, I trapped myself between two different drafts of that clause :) Should read 'tend to be fans...', of course. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Who can close BZs?
On Fri, 2013-12-06 at 16:03 -0500, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote: > On 12/06/2013 03:34 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Fri, 2013-12-06 at 15:28 -0500, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote: > > > >> All of the above is fine. However, your are exhibiting profound > >> arrogance in stepping in for real fedora managers/developers. Do your > >> RFEs and your own bzs, but, leave other peoples bz reports alone. > > > > You are assuming a policy that does not exist. I don't believe there is > > any rule or policy which Chris' closure of your bug violated. > > > > As someone said upthread, Fedora is intentionally not hedged around with > > *too* many hard and fast rules. There are various statuses in FAS which > > translate into 'editbugs' privileges - which allow you to close others' > > bugs - and it's generally not considered a problem for people with > > editbugs privileges to do something like this. > > > > If Chris' change had actually been completely wrong, that might have > > been a problem, and the appropriate thing to do would be to reverse it, > > and then keep an eye out to make sure he wasn't repeatedly doing silly > > things, or just trolling, or something. At the point where someone > > exhibits a pattern of bad behaviour, then is the time when we get > > together as a group and say 'hmm, maybe something should be done about > > this'. But no, there is no rule that says 'Chris can't close a bug Clyde > > filed against anaconda'. > > > > It is ungentlemanly This seems an entirely irrelevant consideration, this is not a gentlemen's club. > and discourteous. What is wrong with a > person-to-person discourse first. Bug trackers are not forums. They are tools for tracking bugs. This bug was correctly tracked. 'Discourse' is not required. > There are no rules for that either, > just well-accepted social norms. In my experience, the norm with bugtrackers is just what Chris did. We try to make Fedora a welcoming environment, but it is also an engineering project, and engineers tend not to be fans of efficiency over unnecessary discussion. As I keep saying: you would get much more traction with your complaint if Chris' decision had been _wrong_. Since it's correct, I'm not sure anyone's going to see much of a problem with it. Correctness is highly valued in collaborative development communities like Fedora. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Who can close BZs?
On 12/06/2013 03:34 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Fri, 2013-12-06 at 15:28 -0500, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote: All of the above is fine. However, your are exhibiting profound arrogance in stepping in for real fedora managers/developers. Do your RFEs and your own bzs, but, leave other peoples bz reports alone. You are assuming a policy that does not exist. I don't believe there is any rule or policy which Chris' closure of your bug violated. As someone said upthread, Fedora is intentionally not hedged around with *too* many hard and fast rules. There are various statuses in FAS which translate into 'editbugs' privileges - which allow you to close others' bugs - and it's generally not considered a problem for people with editbugs privileges to do something like this. If Chris' change had actually been completely wrong, that might have been a problem, and the appropriate thing to do would be to reverse it, and then keep an eye out to make sure he wasn't repeatedly doing silly things, or just trolling, or something. At the point where someone exhibits a pattern of bad behaviour, then is the time when we get together as a group and say 'hmm, maybe something should be done about this'. But no, there is no rule that says 'Chris can't close a bug Clyde filed against anaconda'. It is ungentlemanly and discourteous. What is wrong with a person-to-person discourse first. There are no rules for that either, just well-accepted social norms. -- Regards, OldFart -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Who can close BZs?
On Fri, 2013-12-06 at 15:28 -0500, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote: > All of the above is fine. However, your are exhibiting profound > arrogance in stepping in for real fedora managers/developers. Do your > RFEs and your own bzs, but, leave other peoples bz reports alone. You are assuming a policy that does not exist. I don't believe there is any rule or policy which Chris' closure of your bug violated. As someone said upthread, Fedora is intentionally not hedged around with *too* many hard and fast rules. There are various statuses in FAS which translate into 'editbugs' privileges - which allow you to close others' bugs - and it's generally not considered a problem for people with editbugs privileges to do something like this. If Chris' change had actually been completely wrong, that might have been a problem, and the appropriate thing to do would be to reverse it, and then keep an eye out to make sure he wasn't repeatedly doing silly things, or just trolling, or something. At the point where someone exhibits a pattern of bad behaviour, then is the time when we get together as a group and say 'hmm, maybe something should be done about this'. But no, there is no rule that says 'Chris can't close a bug Clyde filed against anaconda'. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Who can close BZs?
On 12/06/2013 03:07 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Dec 6, 2013, at 10:31 AM, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1038885 Closed the first time because it's not an F20 bug. As mentioned in bug 864198 it's intended behavior. Also closed because the summary about it not installing the boot loader on btrfs doesn't make sense because that's not the problem nor how it would work if it did work, and the description has nothing to do with the actual problem or getting it fixed. I'd always intended to create a clearly described and explicit rawhide RFE tracking bug for the issue, and it was impossible to clean up and change your bug into that without requiring the reader to read 7 comments that have nothing to do with actually progressing the real problems. So that's why I closed it a 2nd time, after creating the tracker bug, for which there will eventually be other bugs it depends on, not just the grubby bug. There are issues with grub2 and os-prober that also need to be addressed for certain use cases. The rationale for the change is thoroughly discussed in several blocker reviews. It's not some arbitrary change, it was made based on several release criteria being violated. Yes it would have been better to fix that old grubby bug that was also an F20 blocker for a month. But it's worse to throw razor blades at hapless users, excusing it with the suggestion they don't really matter when those with secret decoder ring hacks to work around the problem can easily do so. You can still use kickstart to make the layout as you wish. The real issue is that grub-mkconfig isn't confused about /boot being located on btrfs subvolumes. Why? It seems a possible answer for grubby's confusion is located in grub. Chris Murphy All of the above is fine. However, your are exhibiting profound arrogance in stepping in for real fedora managers/developers. Do your RFEs and your own bzs, but, leave other peoples bz reports alone. -- Regards, OldFart -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Who can close BZs?
On Dec 6, 2013, at 10:31 AM, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1038885 Closed the first time because it's not an F20 bug. As mentioned in bug 864198 it's intended behavior. Also closed because the summary about it not installing the boot loader on btrfs doesn't make sense because that's not the problem nor how it would work if it did work, and the description has nothing to do with the actual problem or getting it fixed. I'd always intended to create a clearly described and explicit rawhide RFE tracking bug for the issue, and it was impossible to clean up and change your bug into that without requiring the reader to read 7 comments that have nothing to do with actually progressing the real problems. So that's why I closed it a 2nd time, after creating the tracker bug, for which there will eventually be other bugs it depends on, not just the grubby bug. There are issues with grub2 and os-prober that also need to be addressed for certain use cases. The rationale for the change is thoroughly discussed in several blocker reviews. It's not some arbitrary change, it was made based on several release criteria being violated. Yes it would have been better to fix that old grubby bug that was also an F20 blocker for a month. But it's worse to throw razor blades at hapless users, excusing it with the suggestion they don't really matter when those with secret decoder ring hacks to work around the problem can easily do so. You can still use kickstart to make the layout as you wish. The real issue is that grub-mkconfig isn't confused about /boot being located on btrfs subvolumes. Why? It seems a possible answer for grubby's confusion is located in grub. Chris Murphy -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Who can close BZs?
On 06.12.2013 18:31, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote: > On 12/06/2013 10:56 AM, Karel Volný wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Dne pátek, 6. prosince 2013 16:19:35 CEST, Clyde E. Kunkel napsal(a): >>> Is there a policy or other guidance on who is allowed to close another >>> persons bz? For example, can a person who is not a member of the >>> action developer or bugzappers group close a bz, especially a >>> non-trivial bz? >> >> well, anyone with the appropriate permissions (even some robots)? >> >> while a formal policy could be nice, I guess it is better not to >> complicate the rules ... anyone helping to clean the mess in bugzilla is >> welcome; if someone has a few spare cycles and notices something could >> be closed, why not to do it instead of the overloaded developer? >> >> - if you think that some bug has been closed improperly, let's talk >> about that concrete case and not about policies >> >> K. >> > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1038885 Throughout "history" you can see who did what, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_activity.cgi?id=1038885 It seems that an "expert" closed report to open the same as that. Hah poma -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Who can close BZs?
On 12/06/2013 10:56 AM, Karel Volný wrote: Hi, Dne pátek, 6. prosince 2013 16:19:35 CEST, Clyde E. Kunkel napsal(a): Is there a policy or other guidance on who is allowed to close another persons bz? For example, can a person who is not a member of the action developer or bugzappers group close a bz, especially a non-trivial bz? well, anyone with the appropriate permissions (even some robots)? while a formal policy could be nice, I guess it is better not to complicate the rules ... anyone helping to clean the mess in bugzilla is welcome; if someone has a few spare cycles and notices something could be closed, why not to do it instead of the overloaded developer? - if you think that some bug has been closed improperly, let's talk about that concrete case and not about policies K. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1038885 -- Regards, OldFart -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Who can close BZs?
On 12/06/2013 03:56 PM, Karel Volný wrote: Hi, Dne pátek, 6. prosince 2013 16:19:35 CEST, Clyde E. Kunkel napsal(a): Is there a policy or other guidance on who is allowed to close another persons bz? For example, can a person who is not a member of the action developer or bugzappers group close a bz, especially a non-trivial bz? well, anyone with the appropriate permissions (even some robots)? while a formal policy could be nice, I guess it is better not to complicate the rules ... anyone helping to clean the mess in bugzilla is welcome; if someone has a few spare cycles and notices something could be closed, why not to do it instead of the overloaded developer? - if you think that some bug has been closed improperly, let's talk about that concrete case and not about policies FYI I'm pretty sure RH bugzilla admin frown upon giving Fedora QA community members those privileges... JBG -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Who can close BZs?
Hi, Dne pátek, 6. prosince 2013 16:19:35 CEST, Clyde E. Kunkel napsal(a): Is there a policy or other guidance on who is allowed to close another persons bz? For example, can a person who is not a member of the action developer or bugzappers group close a bz, especially a non-trivial bz? well, anyone with the appropriate permissions (even some robots)? while a formal policy could be nice, I guess it is better not to complicate the rules ... anyone helping to clean the mess in bugzilla is welcome; if someone has a few spare cycles and notices something could be closed, why not to do it instead of the overloaded developer? - if you think that some bug has been closed improperly, let's talk about that concrete case and not about policies K. -- Karel Volný QE BaseOs/Daemons Team Red Hat Czech, Brno tel. +420 532294274 (RH: +420 532294111 ext 8262074) xmpp ka...@jabber.cz :: "Never attribute to malice what can :: easily be explained by stupidity." -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Who can close BZs?
Is there a policy or other guidance on who is allowed to close another persons bz? For example, can a person who is not a member of the action developer or bugzappers group close a bz, especially a non-trivial bz? TIA -- Regards, OldFart -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
