On Aug 9, 2009, at 10:24 PM, Markus wrote: > > >>> I think we need at least one additional ticket state: >>> "Nonreproducible". I >>> think a lot of our tickets are in "needs more information" state >>> when >>> really, we just can't reproduce them. > >> Long experience tells me that, indeed, this is a relatively common >> state for >> tickets submitted by the general public, and frequent for >> specialized and >> technically skilled "public" inside a company. > >> So, yes, I think it is a good idea. > > I'd agree with one caveat: the vast majority of "nonreproducable" bugs > are quite reproducible if you're willing to think about the problem > hard > enough--though whether that effort is worth it is another question. I > think it's important to keep this firmly in mind lest > "nonreproducable" > becomes code for "won't fix 'cause I don't feel like exerting myself." > > Or, to put it another way, if a bug is important enough (by normal > normal frequency x severity / avoidablity metrics) "nonreproducable" > becomes an indictment of the programmers attempting to reproduce it as > well as of the users reporting it.
I agree. Maybe we can consider voting to be a means of registering that someone else has hit the bug? I just don't really like the 'needs more information' label being used to usually mean 'cannot reproduce'. They seem pretty different information states. -- An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field. - Niels Bohr --------------------------------------------------------------------- Luke Kanies | http://reductivelabs.com | http://madstop.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
