On Jun 7, 2013, at 10:26 AM, Markus Fritsche <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello, > > I reported a bug I found in > https://pharo.fogbugz.com/default.asp?10849_d0g95e46s78671vi > > The issue was closed in fogbugz. I couldn't really figure out why, until I > looked at Penelope to find out that bug was considered a duplicate. > Normally I thought that fogbugz should send you updates on bugs you reported? We need to check that. > I had a hard time finding that information and the information on the > duplicate (I could figure it out yesterday night, but can't reproduce the > way to find the information today). From what I understood yesterday, this > bug is supposed to be fixed in Pharo-3.0? > In this case, we have fixed in in 3.0 and 2.0 (the bug as a "Parent Case" for 2.0, this was decided in the discussion and done). We often fix things first in 3.0 to test and then fix it in 2.0 so we are sure the fix works. > The images that are offered for downloading seem to all include this bug. The problem is that the 2.0 files referenced directly on pharo-project.org are pointing to the last *release*, while the fixes we do in 2.0 are only in the nightly builds that you can find on http://files.pharo.org/image/20/ for example I already was thinking that this is a problem, we need to discuss what to do. Maybe we should instead have pharo-project.org point on the latest 2.0? > > Anyhow, with this bug, the changes file gets garbaged (or, at least, the > pointers to it) and the image is unuseable. Abandoning the RemoteString > error message looks to the user as if the issue wasn't all that bad, but is > a nuclear attack on the image soon to come. > So there are two problems: 1) the "RemoteString past end of file" on recent linux. 2) Something strange happens sometimes that reading the source fails. https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/7559/Plugins-Primitives-no-longer-work-after-a-while (it has a parent case for 2.0) > About issue tracking: is the process closed to the public on purpose? FugBugz does not allow read access for anonymous users. We *really* don't like this but it can't be changed. That is why we added bugs.pharo.org where you can get an account immediately *and* view all issues Maybe this is not enough and we need to abandon Fogbugz because it just is "too closed"? > I have > to admit I misused the google code bugtracker in the past, because I > reported an incident from the user point of view and later learned, that the > bug reporting & fixing process was meant to be used only from a developers > perspective. > Not really…. but it is difficult to do both in the same system. Maybe we need two bug trackers? One for bugs and one to funnel through improvements and fixes? > When I have a "user" issue - am I supposed to report to the mailing list > instead and an issue will be created by the pharo core team? > No, normally the idea is that people should report bug entires. But one thing that is always a problem is man-power: Not many people look at the bug tracker. (To me it always feels as if I am the only one…). This means in turn, we need to sometimes deal with bugs in a way that might not be perfect. The only way to make it better is if more people share the load. I don't see any other way. Marcus
