On 8/15/2012 3:20 PM, Marc Grober wrote:
On 8/15/12 1:57 PM, Andrew Brager wrote:
Thanks for your comments. What still remains unclear to me (not that it
matters as I have no influence/authority on anything done by anyone -
I'm simply trying to help you all sort it out so somebody in a position
to do something can then do it) is whether the bug status was changed in
that 5 month period between when you re-confirmed the bug, and when it
was closed.
In other words, did it get changed from NEEDINFO to NEW when you
reconfirmed the bug, as was implied should have happened? Or did it go
from NEEDINFO to CLOSED with no intervening status? If the latter, then
in my opinion there's a bug in bugzilla as (I would think) it should
have changed when you reconfirmed the bug. If the former, then there's
a problem with the process, not the tool. The answers to those
questions will answer the question "which one needs fixing?" If the
process needs fixing, then in my opinion there needs to be additional
status flags and additional feedback from the developers as I previously
wrote.
Based on Florien's post, it sounds like he only closed those that were
in the NEEDINFO state, which implies there's a bug in bugzilla as I
state above.
I think there is another possibility, and that is that the bug lifecycle
is dubious. See, https://bugs.freedesktop.org/docs/en/html/lifecycle.html
That diagram is in fact interesting. Based on that diagram (which may
or may not be utilized by the LO team), then the process followed by the
LO team is in error. They've chosen to dump unconfirmed bugs back on
the user community, instead of confirming the bugs themselves. I can
understand why they've done it, the work is probably overwhelming and
they're volunteers so they've chosen to let each individual user/bug
submitter either resubmit or assume resolved status. Not a bad choice
from their point of view, it's the path of least work for them. It
makes sense from that viewpoint. The proper way to do it would have
been to check each bug themselves as normally would be done prior to a
production release. They took the practical, expedient approach instead
and I don't think you can fault them for doing so.
With respect to LO bugs, it is still unclear what the various stages of
the bug lifecycle is, and who is empowered to make various changes to
the bug status. As an unempowered user I cannot "confirm" a bug.
Nor should you be able to confirm a bug. And that of course is where
the model (or process) is broken, since as I mentioned above they've
dumped the testing back on the user - with decent reasoning - but it
still breaks the model as provided by the diagram. So yes, somebody on
the developer's side needs to make some decisions as to how best to fix
the model and/or process. Personally I don't see a problem with their
decision to dump the bugs back on the user considering they themselves
are volunteers, but somewhere somehow the status needs to change from
NEEDINFO to NEW (which is not provided for in the model so clearly
things have changed either with the model as supplied by bugzilla, or
the LO team has customized their copy. So, I reiterate my previous
comment that more info. is needed from the bug submitters as to what
stages the status flags went through to determine whether it's the
process or bugzilla that needs fixing.
Moreover, there is no context help available regarding status hierarchy.
What I think I am seeing, as in so many such projects, is a disconnect
between what devs think is happening and what bug reporters think is
happening.....
I agree with your assessment. But until someone starts providing the
missing info. I fear there can be no resolution. Ultimately someone
from the developer's and/or administrative side of the fence needs to
figure out how to resolve this to most people's satisfaction.
--
For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
