On 10/8/16 11:39 AM, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
2. The ticket in which I reported that bugs.mozilla.org allows
tickets to be marked as both WONTFIX and resolved
In Bugzilla, a bug can be in multiple states that indicate what work
remains to be done on it: UNCONFIRMED, NEW, RESOLVED (and REOPENED,
which I think we should get rid of). Those correspond to "need to check
whether this is a real issue", "need to deal with the issue", and "no
more work needs to be done here".
The RESOLVED state has different resolutions that explain _why_ no more
work needs to be done. These include FIXED (issue is fixed), INVALID
(behavior is as intended, e.g. because it's required by a
specification), and WONTFIX (acknowledgement that this is an issue, but
an explicit decision that the behavior won't be changed nevertheless,
typically with the reasons why given when the resolution is set to
WONTFIX).
Given that, having something both "RESOLVED" and "WONTFIX" is everything
working as-designed: there is no more work to be done, because an
explicit decision has been made to not change the behavior, even though
the behavior is indeed wrong in some way.
is one of the 9 tickets which were marked as resolved (and is still
marked as invalid at
this time).
Right, because this is the intended behavior of Bugzilla: it has
separate fields for "what work remains to be done" and "why no more work
needs to be done here".
You seem to be using a different definition of the word "resolved" than
that used in the Bugzilla UI and insisting that everyone else use the
same definition as you, even after it was explained to you what the
specific status "RESOLVED" means in terms of the Bugzilla workflow.
That's not very constructive, unfortunately...
3. Three of these were marked as incomplete, when there was no
request for any more information about these.
I agree that private mail to ask for the information may have been
better. Note that asking for information in the bug would not have
allowed you to respond, given that the account was disabled.
That said, a disabled account is typically a sign that someone was
argumentative or abusive to the point where interacting with them was
not being productive at all, so I can understand people not wanting to
engage in that situation...
6. My account on bugs.mozilla.org has been disabled by another
contributor who has not provided a justification.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1288913#c9 seems to be the
justification.
7. I realized item 6 weeks after the incident happened, even after the
contributor mentioned in item 5.3. I did not receive any mail
informing me.
It's possible that disabled accounts do not get mail sent to them from
Bugzilla. At least that would explain your not seeing any of the mails
you say you didn't see....
10. There is no link to the contact point offered when a contributor's
account is disabled.
Generally accounts are disabled at the point when it becomes clear that
engaging with someone is never productive. In this case, it's not clear
to me that this was the case, though I can see how someone dealing only
with https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1288913 could come to
that conclusion...
Are there measures designed to incite participants to solve issues?
No, apart from people wanting to have a clear list of what work actually
needs to be done (and hence removing things that don't need to be done
from the "list of things that need to be done").
-Boris
