Marcus Denker wrote:
On 03 Oct 2014, at 12:46, Marcus Denker <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 03 Oct 2014, at 12:21, [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
Frankly, I see fogbugz issues closed with some ignore/cannot
reproduce status, so, I am not creating any of them anymore. Why
bother, except for blocking bugs?
It takes time to even look at an issue, the first attempt to reproduce
it as a prelude to attacking it. If it cannot be reproduced and is just
left open, the second developer comes along later and it consumes their
time to do the same, and again later the third developer that comes
along. This is "bug bankruptcy" per...
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2012/07/09.html
Now I looked and see I have 50 tickets open, which shocked myself. It
seems I forgot about them and its not taking effort even to revisit my
OWN tickets to evaluate if they are still relevant, or can be reproduced
- let alone someone else doing this. So perhaps we should consider
Fogbugz less a "bug-notification" database but more a "bug-report"
database, with good reproducible steps or proposed solutions. Now it is
a balancing act, since my natural tendency is to want to make a
placeholder to collaborate with others who might experience the same
problem, but in practice that doesn't seem to occur a lot.
-ben
Tell me: What is the difference between a bug that it fixed and one
that can not be reproduced?
I wonder if people have an idea of the scale of things…
- We closed 107 issues the last 7 days
- there are 618 open issues
- There where 11268 issues reported for Pharo since we started.
So when I look at an issue i try to reproduce it. If I can not, I close
it. Else this is not possible to do, sorry. Even if I wanted to: If we keep
all non-reproducible cases open we soon will be paralysed. (And that by
issues that to 99% are fixed).
Marcus
