I agree with Edy’s answer. However, what Manuel is also saying (I think), is that by doing so, we don’t reward the reporter and we don’t incitate him/her to report more. Basically he’s found the problem and we’re saying that he just found a duplicate (this is what someone looking at JIRA without doing archeology on the activity of the issues will think).
I don’t have the solution though. Any idea? Thanks -Vincent > On 23 Sep 2016, at 12:46, Eduard Moraru <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, Manuel, > > On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Manuel Smeria <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hello Devs, >> >> I would like to propose a new best practice for the way we close issues as >> Duplicate. >> >> As an example I've reported this issue: >> http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-13728 which was later closed as a >> Duplicate to http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-13729. >> >> From my perspective, this is not correct since the issue I reported is >> valid from an user's POV. >> I would have preferred that my issue was renamed and that developers would >> have added some technical information as a comment to it if they wanted to >> do so. >> It just doesn't make any sense to me to close a perfectly valid issue as a >> Duplicate just to create another one that has a more technically correct >> summary and description. >> >> It also doesn't make sense to close the original issue as a Duplicate to a >> duplicate issue :) (pun intended) >> I see things like this: my issue's description is a use-case of the issue >> later reported by Edy, so if anything, Edy's issue should be closed as a >> Duplicate to mine and not the other way around. >> > > As you have explained it yourself, the issue you have created is a > *usecase*, a *manifestation* of a real problem. That is why we have > identified the real problem (the "cause") and I have created an issue to > specifically address it and fix it, linking your manifestation issue to the > actual problem that caused it. A developer will work to fix the actual > problem, and not its many manifestations. This way, in the issues tracker > (jira), we will have recorded both the actual problem and one (or many) of > its manifestations so that, when a user (or even a dev) does a search for a > manifestation, it will be easy to find the actual problem he is having > (manifestation), but also the real problem that caused it (and when it was > fixed). > > If we were to modify the manifestation issue or simply add a comment, we > would lose all the above mentioned information, which would not be ideal, > so, instead, even if it breaks a bit the chronology of things, we mark the > manifestation issue as a duplicate of the "cause" issue, which makes > perfect sense when you look at it this way. Fixing the cause will > automatically fix all reported manifestations which were clearly marked as > duplicates of the cause. > > So, in practice, when there are more opened issues that are clearly > duplicates, the one with the most information and that best identifies the > real source of the problem is left opened, while all the others which are > addressing manifestations get closed as duplicates of the previous one, > even if that issue happened to be reported later in the chronology. > > >> >> One scenario where I think issues dated previously should be closed as >> Duplicate is if the new issue has already been fixed. For example when a >> Developer doesn't notice an older issue and starts working on the new one >> instead of closing the new one as a Duplicate and work on the older one. >> There might be more, feel free to add them to this thread. >> > > Yes, we do that already. > > >> >> So, what I propose is that we don't close original issues as Duplicate >> unless it falls into the category previously described or some other >> exceptions that I can't think of now and might occur. >> > > As I mentioned, the "original" issue is less valuable both to users and to > devs as an identified "cause" issue, which really needs fixing. "Original" > issues still offer value to users when searching or reading release notes, > but that`s as far as it can go. > > Does this make sense? > > Thanks, > Eduard > > >> >> Thanks, >> Manuel >> _______________________________________________ >> devs mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs >> > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
