On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Guillaume Delhumeau < [email protected]> wrote:
> 2016-09-23 12:57 GMT+02:00 Vincent Massol <[email protected]>: > > > 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. > > > > In general, saying "thanks you" seems to be good practice :) It's good for > issues, pull requests, etc... In this particular case, we could simply say: > "Thanks to this report, we have found the cause of this problem which is > described in the issue ISSUE-1. As a consequence, we have closed this > current issue as a duplicate of ISSUE-1." > > > > > > Any idea? > > > > Thanks > > -Vincent > > > > I agree with the reasoning of Edy about "causes" and "manifestations". It's > already the way I am handling issues too. However, I have noticed a little > problem. > > The issues closed as duplicates are never mentioned in the release notes. > It's because we don't set the "fix version" field for these issues. It > makes sense because we don't always know when the "cause" will be closed, > and it would be a pain to synchronize everything afterwards. > > But it means that a user, who have experienced a bug but haven't followed > the jira issue, won't see in the release notes that her bug is solved. > Instead, she will see the "cause" bug without seeing its link to the > manifestation, except by manually browsing jira. > > So it is a question of visibility. By reading the list of the issues, we > miss all the bugs that we consider as manifestations of an other one. > > What do you think about this? > Sounds interesting, but it would only make sense, IMO, if we can automate it, i.e. when updating the Fixed Version property of an issue, also update it for all its duplicates, so that they are always in synch. We could probably write some quick listener component/script to take care of this, since on a quick Google search, the question does appear, but not a clear result other than custom code. Thanks, Eduard > > Thanks, > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > -- > Guillaume Delhumeau ([email protected]) > Research & Development Engineer at XWiki SAS > Committer on the XWiki.org project > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
