I'm happy to report a successful bug day with a final tally of almost 40 issues closed. The specific issues we squashed were: #28,#181,#321,#340,#349,#439,#444,#495,#511,#532,#540,#543, #544,#545,#546,#553,#562,#574,#584,#602,#637,#644,#654,#658,#666, #678,#724,#800,#810,#811,#875,#1003,#1042,#1050,#1148,#1227,#1298, #1300. Thanks to all who participated! -Casey
Casey Duncan wrote at 2004-4-29 22:19 -0400:
I'm happy to report a successful bug day with a final tally of almost 40 issues closed. The specific issues we squashed were:
#28,#181,#321,#340,#349,#439,#444,#495,#511,#532,#540,#543, #544,#545,#546,#553,#562,#574,#584,#602,#637,#644,#654,#658,#666, #678,#724,#800,#810,#811,#875,#1003,#1042,#1050,#1148,#1227,#1298, #1300.
However, you closed (at least one) bug reports without resolving the the issue. I do not think this is good practice... Bug reports should remain open until they are either fixed or can no longer occur. They should not be closed just because you do not plan to fix them in the near future... -- Dieter
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 20:14:30 +0200 Dieter Maurer <dieter@handshake.de> wrote:
Casey Duncan wrote at 2004-4-29 22:19 -0400:
I'm happy to report a successful bug day with a final tally of almost 40 issues closed. The specific issues we squashed were:
#28,#181,#321,#340,#349,#439,#444,#495,#511,#532,#540,#543, #544,#545,#546,#553,#562,#574,#584,#602,#637,#644,#654,#658,#666, #678,#724,#800,#810,#811,#875,#1003,#1042,#1050,#1148,#1227,#1298, #1300.
However, you closed (at least one) bug reports without resolving the the issue.
I do not think this is good practice...
Bug reports should remain open until they are either fixed or can no longer occur. They should not be closed just because you do not plan to fix them in the near future...
If a bug will not be fixed, judged by:: - The bug description - The time it has remain open without action - The lack of a patch provided for the bug - The lack of assignment or interest of a sponsor This means it is an unsponsored bug. It should not remain open forever. The bug collector is not a substitute for documentation and issues that will never be resolved should be closed. Otherwise it wastes the time of volunteer bug-fixers. I think the current collector is a bit flawed in the available statuses. There is no specific way to denote an issue as "won't fix" which means that it is possibly a bug, but either it is not fixable, is not deemed worth fixing, cannot be fixed with the information provided, or nobobdy has fixed it for years so it's not gonna happen. I chose to reject the bug hoping that it would cause a reaction, which it did. I'll admit that "reject" is not exactly the right status, however the right status is not currently an option for the collector. Since I can see you feel strongly about this issue, please feel welcome to reopen to bug or change it to a status that better suits it. At this point I see no chance of it being fixed without a champion, however. -Casey
Casey Duncan wrote:
This means it is an unsponsored bug. It should not remain open forever.
Urm, I don't really think this logic is sound ;-)
The bug collector is not a substitute for documentation and issues that will never be resolved should be closed. Otherwise it wastes the time of volunteer bug-fixers.
No it doesn't. Closing bugs that can't or won't be fixed is just sweeping crap under the carpet.
I think the current collector is a bit flawed in the available statuses.
I totally agree ;-)
There is no specific way to denote an issue as "won't fix" which means that it is possibly a bug, but either it is not fixable, is not deemed worth fixing, cannot be fixed with the information provided, or nobobdy has fixed it for years so it's not gonna happen.
Yep, I think a "Won't fix" status would be a good thing (tm). I'd even offer to help but I see the other chris has already run into a brick wall o nthat front :-(
I chose to reject the bug hoping that it would cause a reaction, which it did. I'll admit that "reject" is not exactly the right status, however the right status is not currently an option for the collector.
Yep, although I think Dieter's comment (and this follow-up by me certainly is) was commenting on the wider issue of people rejecting or closing bugs with too much haste or without addressing the issue in a satisfactory way (such as maybe adding to a mythical "known bugs that currently won't be fixed" file is /doc. I know Andreas is certainly pretty bad on this. It's helpful to weed out the crap (ie rubbish postings, or stuff that should be on the list, or stuff that's in the wrong tracker) but just rejecting quickly without giving good explanation, documenting elsewhere or filing an issue in the right tracker feels pretty bad from my point of view :-S cheers, Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Casey Duncan wrote at 2004-4-29 22:19 -0400:
I'm happy to report a successful bug day with a final tally of almost 40 issues closed. The specific issues we squashed were:
#28,#181,#321,#340,#349,#439,#444,#495,#511,#532,#540,#543, #544,#545,#546,#553,#562,#574,#584,#602,#637,#644,#654,#658,#666, #678,#724,#800,#810,#811,#875,#1003,#1042,#1050,#1148,#1227,#1298, #1300.
However, you closed (at least one) bug reports without resolving the the issue.
Make no mistake about this. Had I not spend yesterday on a plane, there would have been many issues closed without resolving it. There are many bugs with ambigous descriptions, or posted anonymously, or things that are rather like support questions than bugs. If I see them I close them. Hard and brutal. :)
I do not think this is good practice...
Bug reports should remain open until they are either fixed or can no longer occur.
If the bug report is understandable, and repetable and indeed a bug, and not a misunderstanding, and the community thinks it should be fixed, then yes. But there are many instances where bugs should be closed without anything being changed at all.
They should not be closed just because you do not plan to fix them in the near future...
True. But if they are not planned to be fixed at all, then they should be closed.
Lennart Regebro wrote:
There are many bugs with ambigous descriptions, or posted anonymously, or things that are rather like support questions than bugs. If I see them I close them. Hard and brutal. :)
This worries me. I think we need a better documented set of circumstances that are used for rejecting or closing bugs. It feels inconsistent right now, and the above kind of attitude, which keeping the number of open issues in the tracker to a minimum, isn't really helping to produce a better quality piece of software. ...and that is our aim here, right?
If the bug report is understandable, and repetable and indeed a bug, and not a misunderstanding, and the community thinks it should be fixed, then yes. But there are many instances where bugs should be closed without anything being changed at all.
Closed is wrong here, we need a "won't fix" state... Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk
--On Samstag, 1. Mai 2004 13:13 Uhr +0100 Chris Withers <chris@simplistix.co.uk> wrote:
Lennart Regebro wrote:
There are many bugs with ambigous descriptions, or posted anonymously, or things that are rather like support questions than bugs. If I see them I close them. Hard and brutal. :)
I agree mostly with Lennart. Anonymous bug reports is one thing. Discussing or solving bugs for ghosts is another one. I tend to oversee anonymous bug reports. If people have something to say or to report they should at least leave their email address. Same with support question..they are completely off-topic. We provide support through the lists, not through the collector. Another point: incomplete but reports. ..if people file issues with incomplete data and if they are not willing to provide additional data I reject such issues....hard and brutal. -aj
Lennart Regebro wrote at 2004-4-30 22:21 +0200:
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Casey Duncan wrote at 2004-4-29 22:19 -0400:
I'm happy to report a successful bug day with a final tally of almost 40 issues closed. The specific issues we squashed were:
#28,#181,#321,#340,#349,#439,#444,#495,#511,#532,#540,#543, #544,#545,#546,#553,#562,#574,#584,#602,#637,#644,#654,#658,#666, #678,#724,#800,#810,#811,#875,#1003,#1042,#1050,#1148,#1227,#1298, #1300.
However, you closed (at least one) bug reports without resolving the the issue.
Make no mistake about this. Had I not spend yesterday on a plane, there would have been many issues closed without resolving it.
There are many bugs with ambigous descriptions, or posted anonymously, or things that are rather like support questions than bugs. If I see them I close them. Hard and brutal. :)
You should not close true bug reports. Doing so is (in my view) a bad approach to quality.
I do not think this is good practice...
Bug reports should remain open until they are either fixed or can no longer occur.
If the bug report is understandable, and repetable and indeed a bug, and not a misunderstanding, and the community thinks it should be fixed, then yes. But there are many instances where bugs should be closed without anything being changed at all.
In my view this should only happen for reports that are not bugs. Reports (of some quality) about true bugs (or unanticipated behaviour) are valuable even when nobody plans to actually fix them.
They should not be closed just because you do not plan to fix them in the near future...
True. But if they are not planned to be fixed at all, then they should be closed.
You risk to get less bug reports in the collector... Filing a (good) bug report takes quite a bit of time. When you have gotten rejections for several bug reports (that took you quite a bit of time) you will start thinking whether the next bug report is worth the effort. I do not think this is what the community should wish for... -- Dieter
+1. This happens a bit on plone.org as well. Valid issues get rejected a bit too quickly when they should be left open or clarified further. Since the submitter is relatively powerless in these trackers there is a bad psychological effect.
Dieter Maurer wrote:
True. But if they are not planned to be fixed at all, then they should be closed.
You risk to get less bug reports in the collector...
Filing a (good) bug report takes quite a bit of time.
When you have gotten rejections for several bug reports (that took you quite a bit of time) you will start thinking whether the next bug report is worth the effort.
I do not think this is what the community should wish for...
I feel compelled to scream "me too!" here. Closing a bug, even if anonymously or incompletely reported does not make Zope any better. See the recent case of a bug that was closed that was still an outstanding crash issue. Thankfully Tim managed to rescue that one. How many other have we lost and are still suffering from as a result?! Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk
[Chris Withers]
I feel compelled to scream "me too!" here. Closing a bug, even if anonymously or incompletely reported does not make Zope any better. See the recent case of a bug that was closed that was still an outstanding crash issue. Thankfully Tim managed to rescue that one.
While that *should* be a good example, it isn't: I only knew that bug existed because someone closed it on Bug Day (and I'm subscribed to the Collectors, and read the email they generate). If that bug had been left open, it would still be sitting there ignored. OTOH, Dieter discovered the same bug earlier this year, and it would have gotten fixed eventually because of that, but not as quickly.
How many other have we lost and are still suffering from as a result?!
Some bugs are so vaguely described nobody could guess -- and when they're anonymous too, there's no effective way to get more info. Those ought to be closed. On the Python bug tracker, I don't close vague bug reports instantly. Instead I add a note, saying that unless more information is added, the bug will be closed a month later. It's rare that more info gets added then, so they usually do get closed -- but it's more graceful when the OP does add more info.
On Thu, 6 May 2004 10:45:03 -0400 "Tim Peters" <tim@zope.com> wrote: [..]
On the Python bug tracker, I don't close vague bug reports instantly. Instead I add a note, saying that unless more information is added, the bug will be closed a month later. It's rare that more info gets added then, so they usually do get closed -- but it's more graceful when the OP does add more info.
I intend to do this as well in the future. I assumed that bug reports posted years ago with no followup had little or no chance of ever being clarified now. I will try to tread a little lighter on the Reject button and add a comment requesting clarification regardless of age. If I don't hear any for a month or so, then the bug will be closed. -Casey
Casey Duncan wrote:
I will try to tread a little lighter on the Reject button and add a comment requesting clarification regardless of age. If I don't hear any for a month or so, then the bug will be closed.
Great, don't suppose you can do a mind-meld with Andreas and Maik and get that point across to them too? ;-) Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk
Tim Peters wrote:
While that *should* be a good example, it isn't: I only knew that bug existed because someone closed it on Bug Day (and I'm subscribed to the Collectors, and read the email they generate).
*bangs head against desk*
Some bugs are so vaguely described nobody could guess -- and when they're anonymous too, there's no effective way to get more info. Those ought to be closed.
Indeed. How about removing the ability for people to post bugs withotu specifying n email address? And, if they do specify an email address, using that to contact them by sending notification mails to it? For all I know, this happens already, but people don't perceive it as happening so the ythink "anonymous" bug postings will never be heard from and so close them straight away as "anonymous, therefor we don't care" cheers, Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk
From: "Chris Withers" <chris@simplistix.co.uk>
How about removing the ability for people to post bugs withotu specifying n email address? And, if they do specify an email address, using that to contact them by sending notification mails to it?
At least, warning them that bugs without email adresses are likely to be closed without good reason, if we don't understand the bug report.
For all I know, this happens already, but people don't perceive it as happening so the ythink "anonymous" bug postings will never be heard from and so close them straight away as "anonymous, therefor we don't care"
Well, most "Anonymous" users enter their name, and supposedly their email. I don't really see that as anonymous... Maybe it could be changed to "Not a registered used" instead? It could still say anonymous if they don't have an email... Here is a good example: http://collector.zope.org/Zope/608 I don't understand the issuem and suspect it\s a user error, so I add a comment. Milos Prudek has entered a mail adress, so he gets notified, so he mails me (directly). I then understand the bug, but not how to fix it. Nothing has happened since, of course... But there ya go. If there had been no name there, I would have probably just said "I think it's a user error, and will close it until proven otherwise".
On Fri, 07 May 2004 09:56:45 +0100 Chris Withers <chris@simplistix.co.uk> wrote:
Tim Peters wrote:
While that *should* be a good example, it isn't: I only knew that bug existed because someone closed it on Bug Day (and I'm subscribed to the Collectors, and read the email they generate).
*bangs head against desk*
Some bugs are so vaguely described nobody could guess -- and when they're anonymous too, there's no effective way to get more info. Those ought to be closed.
Indeed.
How about removing the ability for people to post bugs withotu specifying n email address? And, if they do specify an email address, using that to contact them by sending notification mails to it?
No, some very valuable bugs are submitted anonymously. People can be very paranoid (rightly) about their privacy. We do want to encourage bug submissions even if that means more noise. AFAIK the collector does mail the poster on state change if they have an email address.
For all I know, this happens already, but people don't perceive it as happening so the ythink "anonymous" bug postings will never be heard from and so close them straight away as "anonymous, therefor we don't care"
Nope, many times we do care. But when we don't we will close them. To be clear: big -1 on restricting anonymous posting -Casey
On Fri, 7 May 2004, Casey Duncan wrote:
On Fri, 07 May 2004 09:56:45 +0100 Chris Withers <chris@simplistix.co.uk> wrote:
Tim Peters wrote:
While that *should* be a good example, it isn't: I only knew that bug existed because someone closed it on Bug Day (and I'm subscribed to the Collectors, and read the email they generate).
*bangs head against desk*
Some bugs are so vaguely described nobody could guess -- and when they're anonymous too, there's no effective way to get more info. Those ought to be closed.
Indeed.
How about removing the ability for people to post bugs withotu specifying n email address? And, if they do specify an email address, using that to contact them by sending notification mails to it?
No, some very valuable bugs are submitted anonymously. People can be very paranoid (rightly) about their privacy. We do want to encourage bug submissions even if that means more noise.
Right. The business rationale for allowing anonymous postings was "it's kinda bogus to require someone to become a member of the community in order to do the community the favor of submitting a bug report."
AFAIK the collector does mail the poster on state change if they have an email address.
I think that's right. I worried a little bit about the potential for mischief, but not much, and it hasn't proved to be a problem.
For all I know, this happens already, but people don't perceive it as happening so the ythink "anonymous" bug postings will never be heard from and so close them straight away as "anonymous, therefor we don't care"
Nope, many times we do care. But when we don't we will close them.
To be clear: big -1 on restricting anonymous posting
I don't think non-member posting is going to be restricted. Ken klm@zope.com
Casey Duncan wrote:
No, some very valuable bugs are submitted anonymously. People can be very paranoid (rightly) about their privacy. We do want to encourage bug submissions even if that means more noise.
So on the one hand we say "we rarely care about anonymous bug posts" and on the other "close anonymous bug posts as soon as we can". This doesn't add up for me... Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk
On Mon, 10 May 2004 13:21:26 +0100 Chris Withers <chris@simplistix.co.uk> wrote:
Casey Duncan wrote:
No, some very valuable bugs are submitted anonymously. People can be very paranoid (rightly) about their privacy. We do want to encourage bug submissions even if that means more noise.
So on the one hand we say "we rarely care about anonymous bug posts" and on the other "close anonymous bug posts as soon as we can".
I didn't say that. To me a bug is a bug. The only difference is that anonymous postings can't really be replied to for more info, so vague anonymous bug reports will likely be closed quicker because of this. -Casey
participants (8)
-
Andreas Jung -
Casey Duncan -
Chris Withers -
Dieter Maurer -
Ken Manheimer -
Lennart Regebro -
Simon Michael -
Tim Peters