https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40118
Web browser: --- Bug #: 40118 Summary: Rename RESOLVED DUPLICATE to RESOLVED MERGED Product: Wikimedia Version: unspecified Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Keywords: upstream Severity: enhancement Priority: Unprioritized Component: Bugzilla AssignedTo: wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org ReportedBy: federicol...@tiscali.it CC: s...@reedyboy.net, thehelpfulonew...@gmail.com Classification: Unclassified Mobile Platform: --- I think "merged" (to another bug report) describes better what it means; it's the terminology used by Google Code (which IMHO is generally horrible but sometimes has a point). Extremely low priority proposal, almost surely upstream and/or WONTFIX, which I file just to track the following circular discussion we had on #wikimedia-tech and which it would help to avoid in the future. ;-) 2012-09-05 2.42 < Nemo_bis> Brooke: exercises in logic clashes? https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36096#c3 2012-09-05 2.43 < Brooke> Nemo_bis: What? 2012-09-05 2.43 < Brooke> Nemo_bis: Why did you re-open that bug? 2012-09-05 2.44 < Brooke> We dupe down unless there's a really good reason to dupe up. In this case, you duped up from a bug with a lot of explanation to a bug with a single sentence. 2012-09-05 2.45 < Nemo_bis> Brooke: you didn't explain this supposed convention 2012-09-05 2.45 < Brooke> Which part is confusing? 2012-09-05 2.45 < Nemo_bis> I keep the most useful bug open, surely not the most confusing one 2012-09-05 2.46 < Brooke> It's about courtesy to the bug filer. 2012-09-05 2.46 < Nemo_bis> Brooke: none, perhaps the part which was missing 2012-09-05 2.46 < Brooke> Saying "oh, your bug is a duplicate" when it was filed months or years earlier isn't very polite. 2012-09-05 2.46 < Nemo_bis> I don't see how. 2012-09-05 2.46 < Nemo_bis> When someone closes my bug as a duplicate my reaction is "oh, nice, someone else has noticed my bug elsewhere!" 2012-09-05 2.47 < Nemo_bis> "Oh, he even described it better!" 2012-09-05 2.47 < Nemo_bis> "Hey, this summary is wonderful" 2012-09-05 2.47 < Nemo_bis> etc. etc. 2012-09-05 2.47 < Brooke> If you really liked Niklas's description better, you can copy and paste to the old bug. 2012-09-05 2.48 < Brooke> And if there are indepedent problems with the original bug, they can be fixed. 2012-09-05 2.48 < Nemo_bis> no 2012-09-05 2.48 < Nemo_bis> uh? 2012-09-05 2.49 < Brooke> Duplicate usually means "you filed a bug that has already been filed." Duping up doesn't make much sense. 2012-09-05 2.49 < Nemo_bis> I disgree with your definition 2012-09-05 2.49 < Nemo_bis> {{citation needed}} 2012-09-05 2.49 < Brooke> It's only ever done when it's too onerous to copy the comments from the newer bug. 2012-09-05 2.50 < Nemo_bis> {{citation needed}} 2012-09-05 2.50 < Brooke> > The problem is a duplicate of an existing bug. 2012-09-05 2.50 < Brooke> That's what our docs say. 2012-09-05 2.50 < Nemo_bis> Yes and it's different from what you said 2012-09-05 2.51 < Nemo_bis> anyway part of my confusion was cause by the ignorance of the verbs "dupe up" and "dupe down", I admit 2012-09-05 2.52 < Nemo_bis> I've never had much luck with English phrasal verbs 2012-09-05 2.52 < Brooke> It's also kind of made-up English. ;-) 2012-09-05 2.52 < Nemo_bis> indeed 2012-09-05 2.52 < Brooke> I think there's a judgment being made on the bug filer when we resolve their bug. 2012-09-05 2.52 < Brooke> In the case of duplicates, I think it's unfair to say "well, you made a copy of a bug that came after yours." 2012-09-05 2.53 < Nemo_bis> marking as duplicate is just moving the bug, not trashing it 2012-09-05 2.53 < Brooke> It's distorted. 2012-09-05 2.53 < Nemo_bis> it's NOT what it says 2012-09-05 2.53 < Nemo_bis> don't repeat it 2012-09-05 2.53 < Brooke> You mean don't make a copy of it? 2012-09-05 2.53 < Nemo_bis> «say "well, you made a copy of a bug that came after yours."» 2012-09-05 2.53 < Nemo_bis> ok, as I sais, this is a logic problem 2012-09-05 2.53 < Brooke> That is what it's saying. 2012-09-05 2.54 < Brooke> You're labeling the old bug as a duplicate (a copy) of a future bug. 2012-09-05 2.54 < Nemo_bis> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_relation 2012-09-05 2.54 < Nemo_bis> you're messing up with tense 2012-09-05 2.54 < Brooke> spagewmf: Global renames are pretty painful. 2012-09-05 2.54 < Nemo_bis> lead section is horrible; better https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_relation#Definition 2012-09-05 2.55 < Brooke> Nemo_bis: Are you saying a duplicate is not a copy? 2012-09-05 2.55 < Nemo_bis> Brooke: I've no idea how the two terms differ 2012-09-05 2.56 < Brooke> Hmmm. 2012-09-05 2.56 < Brooke> I think I see what you're saying. 2012-09-05 2.56 < Nemo_bis> light came 2012-09-05 2.56 < Nemo_bis> :p 2012-09-05 2.56 < Brooke> But even with a copy, you still have the original. 2012-09-05 2.56 < Brooke> There's always the one that came first. It's timestamped, even. 2012-09-05 2.57 < Nemo_bis> I see duplicates just as another way to mark templates. 2012-09-05 2.57 < Brooke> templates? 2012-09-05 2.57 < Nemo_bis> It's different from blocker vs. blocked 2012-09-05 2.57 < Nemo_bis> bugs, sorry 2012-09-05 2.57 < Nemo_bis> It's different from blocker vs. blocked only in that it doesn't have nice graphs, but that's a bugzilla issue 2012-09-05 2.57 < Brooke> Right, but there's something to be said about the sequential nature of the bugs. 2012-09-05 2.57 < Nemo_bis> naaaaaaaaaaaaaah 2012-09-05 2.57 < Brooke> They're chronologically sequential. 2012-09-05 2.58 < Brooke> So to say "39000 is a dupe of 2400" is just wrong. :-/ 2012-09-05 2.58 < Nemo_bis> Brooke: doesn't make any sense 2012-09-05 2.58 < Brooke> What doesn't? 2012-09-05 2.58 < Brooke> That view? 2012-09-05 2.58 < Nemo_bis> "The problem is a duplicate of an existing bug." != "The problem was a duplicate of a bug existing before its creation" 2012-09-05 2.59 < Brooke> That it doesn't make sense is what I've been saying. ;-) 2012-09-05 2.59 < Nemo_bis> aka you're adding unstated assumptions somewhere 2012-09-05 2.59 < Brooke> They're not unstated. The bugs are chronologically sequential. 2012-09-05 2.59 < Brooke> They're ordered. 2012-09-05 2.59 < Nemo_bis> Brooke: the correct definition is the first, you're trying to impose the second 2012-09-05 2.59 < Brooke> You're viewing them as unordered. 2012-09-05 3.00 < Brooke> Which doesn't make much sense, because they're ordered. And timestamped. 2012-09-05 3.00 < Nemo_bis> ordering doesn't mean that the first has some entitlemenet 2012-09-05 3.00 < Brooke> It does when you're determining which to keep open. 2012-09-05 3.00 < Nemo_bis> Brooke: tautology 2012-09-05 3.00 < Brooke> Nemo_bis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-come,_first-served 2012-09-05 3.01 < Brooke> It's a fairly old principle... 2012-09-05 3.03 < Nemo_bis> Brooke: which is not stated anywhere in our bugzilla; besides, a dupe is not unserved, the issue it is about is just moved elsewhere 2012-09-05 3.04 < Brooke> Nemo_bis: I kind of always assumed that everyone else looked at the numbering and felt similarly. 2012-09-05 3.04 < Brooke> But, sure, it could/should be better documented. 2012-09-05 3.09 < Nemo_bis> Brooke: actually, when someone closes my bug as duplicate I receive an email which says I've been kindly added to the cc of the other bug. I've always taken that as a kind redirect, a pointer, a "let's continue here". 2012-09-05 3.10 < Brooke> Nemo_bis: I personaly don't like having my bugs marked as duplicates. 2012-09-05 3.10 < Nemo_bis> Brooke: why 2012-09-05 3.10 < Brooke> It usually means to me that I was stupid and couldn't find the original bug. 2012-09-05 3.10 < Brooke> Or the original bug was vauge. 2012-09-05 3.10 < Brooke> vague 2012-09-05 3.10 < Nemo_bis> Brooke: it doesn't if the other bug has been filed afterwards 2012-09-05 3.11 < Nemo_bis> so this case doesn't make anyone feel stupid 2012-09-05 3.11 < Brooke> It can also make me as a bug filer feel ignored. 2012-09-05 3.11 < Brooke> I dunno. 2012-09-05 3.11 < Brooke> I view it as a principle of fairness. 2012-09-05 3.11 < Nemo_bis> I too feel stupid in the other case, but I think "oh well, I've added some sort of redirect for people searching my definition of this bug" 2012-09-05 3.12 < Brooke> Except resolved bugs rarely show up in searches. ;-) 2012-09-05 3.12 < Nemo_bis> Brooke: duplicates are shown by default 2012-09-05 3.12 < Brooke> Fair enough. 2012-09-05 3.12 < Nemo_bis> which is another reason why bugzilla surely doesn't treat them as trash as you seem to say 2012-09-05 3.13 < Nemo_bis> maybe we should call it RESOLVED #REDIRECT 2012-09-05 3.14 < Nemo_bis> and a bug like that receiving any sort of change after years is a relief for the reporter (at least when I'm the reporter), whatever the change -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l