By the way, I wish you had a code of conduct about handling bugs in a way that is not harmful to the goal of fixing them.
2016-04-16 18:23 GMT+02:00 Teo Tei <teo8...@gmail.com>: >> When a report is filed against an old release and not yet fixed, but the >> report hasn't been updated with comments indicating the issue is either >> fixed or still existent in the future releases, I would mark as "Incomplete" >> with a canned comment similar to "[...]" > > That sounds about right, but that's not what dino99 is doing. He is > CLOSING the issues. > >> I am not going to look through all your bugs, but the typical triage >> procedure *is* to Close or Invalid or Incomplete (or Won't Fix for >> series-targeted task items) EOL-release bugs. > > Well, then the typical triage procedure is wrong. And there's a big > difference between close/invalid/wontfix and incomplete. > >> Back a couple years after >> Karmic went End of Life, I went through and, with the API, mass closed at >> least 70 bugs still targeted to the Karmic release. > > You should be ashamed of yourself. > >> That's not the task of everyone - ideally, yes, everyone would test, but >> it's not a requirement in all cases, > > Well, if they are not willing to test, then they shouldn't close the > issue. If it's not their task to test, ask someone else whose task it > is, and only after an issue is verified to be fixed or invalid, close > it. > >> While that may not apply here, it still is valid to make note that you can >> always make a comment without being rude that the issue still exists, and >> ask for the bug to be reopened. > > I did exactly that (except perhaps the part about not being rude, but > i was just responding to a rude behavior), and I myself re-open the > issue, and it got closed again. Now explain how that is not stupid. > >> The Code of Conduct [1] states in it two big issues of which you >> didn't do here: Be Considerate, Be Respectful. > > I am considerate and respectful to those who are considered and > respectful. Closing an issue which a person took the time to report, > without taking the time to verify whether it's fixed or not, is very > disrespectful not only to the person who reported it, but also to > everybody affected by it. > > >> I don't see abuse here - they're not idiotic, they're just trying to clean >> up old ancient bugs that are against EOL releases, and haven't yet been >> marked as being affecting a later release. > > Well, *that* is idiotic, because by following that logic (note that it > includes closing the issue WITHOUT testing whether or not it affects a > later release), EVERY SINGLE BUG that is not fixed before the EOL will > be closed before it's fixed. > > >> This doesn't mean the user is an 'idiot' or being abusive. That's your >> opinion because they're your bugs - that isn't a valid opinion overall. > > They are not "my bugs", they are every user's bugs. It's funny that > the whole way you handle bugs seems to assume that the bugs somehow > concern only the person who happen to report them. That also applies > to the practice of closing a bug that remains "incomplete" (or > "needinfo" or whatever it's called) when you ask the reporter for more > information and the reporter just doesn't reply. > > And regarding my opinion not being valid overall, I just argued > against that in my previous comment. -- Ubuntu-quality mailing list Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality