Hi, On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. I`m not sure. I understand what you`re saying, but I`m wondering if this is not a problem of perspective. 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). > That would be totally superficial, IMO. It is easy to look at the dates when the issue was reported and see that, even if it is marked as a duplicate, it was clearly reported before the real "cause" was found (like we have in our current case). Nobody is taking any credit from the reporter in any way. The reality of things is that the reported has reported a manifestation which eventually lead to finding the cause. Looking at it just by whose name is on the issue marked with Fixed does not really tell you much. Yes, this can impact reports or dashboards, but those reports can never reflect what actually goes on in practice and if you are really interested in that information, it`s very easy to trace it all the way (i.e. do "archeology" :) ). Make no mistake, we *do* appreciate every reported issue and we *do* need more help on pointing us to places where our code does not do what it is supposed to. We`ll eventually figure out the cause of the problem, we don`t expect anyone to point us to that directly. That would spoil all the fun :) Thanks, Eduard > > 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 > _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
