On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 14:48:25 -0400 Michael Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 06:34:21PM +0100, Kevin F. Quinn wrote: > > People reporting bugs often get annoyed when their bug is marked > > INVALID; especially when they're relatively new to the Gentoo > > Experience. We've all seen it many times, I'm sure. > > > But sometimes, just sometimes, the bugs are absolutely 100% invalid. > "Emerging nano broke my apache" (random fake example with two > unrelated packages)(or...are they...?) Well, if someone raises a bug, they have an issue. They may not understand it properly, and may frequently mis-diagnose it, but there's still an issue for them. To take your example, "emerge nano broke my apache" actually implies that apache isn't working properly for the reporter - just because they incorrectly assign blame to an emerge of nano doesn't mean everything is peachy. As the details are eked out of the reporter, the summary may become "ssl support in apache broken with openssl-1.2.3.4", IYSWIM. We shouldn't be closing bugs as INVALID just because the original reporter mis-diagnosed the problem. There are cases where people raise a bug because they've mis-understood something and they don't realise it's behaving correctly - i.e. the behaviour they are complaining about is actually as-designed expected behaviour. But even then, the user had an issue - resolved by the explanation, even if the outcome is no change to anything. Closing it INVALID comes across too often as "oh you're so stupid to raise this as a bug" and there's no need for that to happen, imo. NOTABUG would do well enough in that sort of case I suppose, but there's still an overtone of "you shouldn't have raised this" to it. > More important is to explain > to the user *why* it is invalid, and leave it open to them to argue > and reopen the bug. Better communication, Certainly good explanations as to why a bug is being closed are to be encouraged. My issue isn't with that - it's with the way that the marking INVALID is perceived, when there's no need to be so harsh. > not more convoluted closure > flags, is the solution. IMHO. You know. Word. The idea was to _replace_ INVALID with a less provocative name, not add more closure flags. I certainly agree that we don't need more closure flags. -- Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
