Bug#376594: debbugs: Add 'notbug' to allowable tags. This is different from 'wontfix'
Don Armstrong | Usertags pretty much fix these bugs, and since there has been no | response to the requests for additional information, I'm closing these | bugs. The requirement of additional information was too heavy. I haven't come accross to set bug to state notbug, but that does not mean the absense to need that tag in future packaging work. I do not feel that usertags is the solution here, because it is not standardized. Anybody can pick any tag they wish. A standard notbug would be much cleaner. Jari -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#376594: debbugs: Add 'notbug' to allowable tags. This is different from 'wontfix'
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007, Jari Aalto wrote: Don Armstrong | Usertags pretty much fix these bugs, and since there has been no | response to the requests for additional information, I'm closing these | bugs. The requirement of additional information was too heavy. I haven't come accross to set bug to state notbug, but that does not mean the absense to need that tag in future packaging work. Well, when you figure out bugs where you'd actually use it you can get back to me. Don Armstrong -- There's no problem so large it can't be solved by killing the user off, deleting their files, closing their account and reporting their REAL earnings to the IRS. -- The B.O.F.H.. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#376594: debbugs: Add 'notbug' to allowable tags. This is different from 'wontfix'
NB: Please don't remove the attribution; it makes it much more difficult to follow what you're saying. On Wed, 05 Jul 2006, Jari Aalto wrote: | - 'usertags' is mainly unused compared to standard tags feature. | | A common sense suggests that there are reports that are not bugs. | | If they're not bugs, then they should probably just be closed with an | informative message. They are, but a notbug sign would also be appropriate. Being standard tag and not random usertag, would bring quality to the BTS (I feel so). It would be a new tag that developers would have to know about to use. Developers who don't already know about how to use usertags are also unlikely to learn about this tag either. This is my experience, which of cource, is not a generalization. But I have a hunch that this is the case among most of the developers. They do their stuff, only very few may be aware of usertags, even less use them. And if used, the tags attached attached varies bringing diversity that cannot be machine processed (statictics ...), like counting notbug would. If they don't care to learn about usertags, then it seems to me that they feel the extant tags are sufficient. I don't have lot to convince other than these posts. If a study needs to be conducted over BTS before enough argements could be taken into consideration -- yet the results may be uncertain -- I'm afraid, there is no-one to put that much effort to get a single and simple thing added to the BTS. All I'm asking is for people who want this tag added to use the tag using usertags, and provide some evidence that the tag will actually be useful; to date, all that's been done is argue about what the tag will be called, (faq, notabug, notbug, leftfield, blahblahblah) not people actually going out and using the tag. Don Armstrong -- There are two types of people in this world, good and bad. The good sleep better, but the bad seem to enjoy the waking hours much more. -- Woody Allen http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#376594: debbugs: Add 'notbug' to allowable tags. This is different from 'wontfix'
| | | - 'usertags' is mainly unused compared to standard tags feature. | | A common sense suggests that there are reports that are not bugs. | | If they're not bugs, then they should probably just be closed with an | informative message. They are, but a notbug sign would also be appropriate. Being standard tag and not random usertag, would bring quality to the BTS (I feel so). | The point is that I'd like to see people already using the features | that are extant to apply usertags to bugs that they think are useful | before I add additional tags. By large, I'm afraid the usertags feature is not used, and continues to be unused. From a developer's point of view during updating packages, one consults: - BTS control page - and the named tags (to select appropriate one) This is my experience, which of cource, is not a generalization. But I have a hunch that this is the case among most of the developers. They do their stuff, only very few may be aware of usertags, even less use them. And if used, the tags attached attached varies bringing diversity that cannot be machine processed (statictics ...), like counting notbug would. | That other bug systems are using it is fine and great, but considering | the fact that we've not really needed it for quite some time suggests | to me that it might not actually be needed. If you want additional | tags, you need to convince me or someone else with the owner AT b.d.o hat | on to add them; using usertags to do it, and a list of bugs with the | tags applied would go along way to convicing me that it would be | useful. I don't have lot to convince other than these posts. If a study needs to be conducted over BTS before enough argements could be taken into consideration -- yet the results may be uncertain -- I'm afraid, there is no-one to put that much effort to get a single and simple thing added to the BTS. I have to rush to my other duties and I hope to have have done my best to bring forward pros in favor of the notbug. Jari -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#376594: debbugs: Add 'notbug' to allowable tags. This is different from 'wontfix'
| Jari Aalto wrote: | Package: debbugs | Severity: wishlist | | There is need for different tag for cases where the user as misunderstood | or he didn't found the correct documentation. Marking such bugs 'closed' | would better have tag 'notbug'. The 'wontfix' is really interpreted | as 'I don't gime a d--m' as expressed in Debian devel. | | This is Feature request based on idea of Linas Evirblis in Debian | devel. | | Surely the tag should be feature rather than notbug? ;-) notbug is netral. The feature is geek term to mark all things feature that are not explained, documented or behave against users expectations. Or was there a smiley somewhere Jari -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#376594: debbugs: Add 'notbug' to allowable tags. This is different from 'wontfix'
Am Montag, den 03.07.2006, 23:38 +0300 schrieb Jari Aalto: Package: debbugs Severity: wishlist There is need for different tag for cases where the user as misunderstood or he didn't found the correct documentation. Marking such bugs 'closed' would better have tag 'notbug'. The 'wontfix' is really interpreted as 'I don't gime a d--m' as expressed in Debian devel. I would also like to see such a tag. I observed (and also reported :)) such bugs, which are not bugs. This is Feature request based on idea of Linas Evirblis in Debian devel. Wouldn't it be better to call this tag 'notabug'? IMO this is better understandable und also used in other BTS systems like e.g. bugzilla. Regards, Daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#376594: debbugs: Add 'notbug' to allowable tags. This is different from 'wontfix'
| Am Montag, den 03.07.2006, 23:38 +0300 schrieb Jari Aalto: | Package: debbugs | Severity: wishlist | | There is need for different tag for cases where the user as misunderstood | or he didn't found the correct documentation. Marking such bugs 'closed' | would better have tag 'notbug'. The 'wontfix' is really interpreted | as 'I don't gime a d--m' as expressed in Debian devel. | | I would also like to see such a tag. I observed (and also reported :)) | such bugs, which are not bugs. | | This is Feature request based on idea of Linas Evirblis in Debian | devel. | | Wouldn't it be better to call this tag 'notabug'? IMO this is better | understandable und also used in other BTS systems like e.g. bugzilla. While that would be English clean name with an article A, the tool in BTS is for technical use. To my opinion not bug better and expresses the extra meaning. Like in programming langauges: ! variable ! error Or not variable not error Jari -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#376594: debbugs: Add 'notbug' to allowable tags. This is different from 'wontfix'
Am Dienstag, den 04.07.2006, 23:15 +0300 schrieb Jari Aalto+mail.linux: | Am Montag, den 03.07.2006, 23:38 +0300 schrieb Jari Aalto: | Package: debbugs | Severity: wishlist | | There is need for different tag for cases where the user as misunderstood | or he didn't found the correct documentation. Marking such bugs 'closed' | would better have tag 'notbug'. The 'wontfix' is really interpreted | as 'I don't gime a d--m' as expressed in Debian devel. | | I would also like to see such a tag. I observed (and also reported :)) | such bugs, which are not bugs. | | This is Feature request based on idea of Linas Evirblis in Debian | devel. | | Wouldn't it be better to call this tag 'notabug'? IMO this is better | understandable und also used in other BTS systems like e.g. bugzilla. While that would be English clean name with an article A, the tool in BTS is for technical use. True. But we also use e.g. fixed-in-experimental and several other tags, which are clear regarding their meaning. To my opinion not bug better and expresses the extra meaning. Like in programming langauges: ! variable ! error Or not variable not error The readers and users of the BTS are humans, not machines. But however this tag will be called, I would just like to see this tag. Regards, Daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#376594: debbugs: Add 'notbug' to allowable tags. This is different from 'wontfix'
On Mon, 03 Jul 2006, Jari Aalto wrote: There is need for different tag for cases where the user as misunderstood or he didn't found the correct documentation. Marking such bugs 'closed' would better have tag 'notbug'. Before another tag is added to the BTS for stuff like this, there should be a list of bugs with the tag applied using usertags, and a set of circumstances where the tag is proposed to be used for. Don Armstrong -- I don't care how poor and inefficient a little country is; they like to run their own business. I know men that would make my wife a better husband than I am; but, darn it, I'm not going to give her to 'em. -- The Best of Will Rogers http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#376594: debbugs: Add 'notbug' to allowable tags. This is different from 'wontfix'
tag 376594 moreinfo thanks On Wed, 05 Jul 2006, Jari Aalto+mail.linux wrote: | On Mon, 03 Jul 2006, Jari Aalto wrote: | There is need for different tag for cases where the user as | misunderstood or he didn't found the correct documentation. | Marking such bugs 'closed' would better have tag 'notbug'. | | Before another tag is added to the BTS for stuff like this, there | should be a list of bugs with the tag applied using usertags, and | a set of circumstances where the tag is proposed to be used for. I don't quite see why this search would be necessary. It can be doubted that it would bring up anythings useful: - 'usertags' is mainly unused compared to standard tags feature. A common sense suggests that there are reports that are not bugs. If they're not bugs, then they should probably just be closed with an informative message. Similar incidents happen in other projects and their bug tracking systems, not just in Debian BTS. The point is that I'd like to see people already using the features that are extant to apply usertags to bugs that they think are useful before I add additional tags. That other bug systems are using it is fine and great, but considering the fact that we've not really needed it for quite some time suggests to me that it might not actually be needed. If you want additional tags, you need to convince me or someone else with the [EMAIL PROTECTED] hat on to add them; using usertags to do it, and a list of bugs with the tags applied would go along way to convicing me that it would be useful. Don Armstrong -- UF: What's your favourite coffee blend? PD: Dark Crude with heavy water. You are understandink? If geiger counter does not click, the coffee, she is just not thick. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#376594: debbugs: Add 'notbug' to allowable tags. This is different from 'wontfix'
| Am Dienstag, den 04.07.2006, 23:15 +0300 schrieb Jari Aalto+mail.linux: | | Wouldn't it be better to call this tag 'notabug'? IMO this is better | | understandable und also used in other BTS systems like e.g. bugzilla. | | While that would be English clean name with an article A, the tool | in BTS is for technical use. | | True. But we also use e.g. fixed-in-experimental and several other | tags, which are clear regarding their meaning. | | To my opinion | | not bug | | better and expresses the extra meaning. Like in programming | langauges: | | ! variable | ! error | | Or | not variable | not error | | The readers and users of the BTS are humans, not machines. But however | this tag will be called, I would just like to see this tag. The readers and users of BTS are international, non-native English speaking, which may prefer to write for simplicity's sake notbug in contrast to notabug. This also reduces spelling mistakes (after sending mail: did I forget an a in the middle?) The articles in general are very difficult to master by non-english. A simple not without article is better if the system is ever expanded. That is, this is cleaner: not variable not error Than writing: not a variable not an error for techical tools like the BTS. It also make writing 3rd party tools to handle bug tracking system easier (not + action), so the tags should be considers to beasily machine handled. Jari -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#376594: debbugs: Add 'notbug' to allowable tags. This is different from 'wontfix'
| | On Mon, 03 Jul 2006, Jari Aalto wrote: | There is need for different tag for cases where the user as | misunderstood or he didn't found the correct documentation. Marking | such bugs 'closed' would better have tag 'notbug'. | | Before another tag is added to the BTS for stuff like this, there | should be a list of bugs with the tag applied using usertags, and a | set of circumstances where the tag is proposed to be used for. I don't quite see why this search would be necessary. It can be doubted that it would bring up anythings useful: - 'usertags' is mainly unused compared to standard tags feature. A common sense suggests that there are reports that are not bugs. Similar incidents happen in other projects and their bug tracking systems, not just in Debian BTS. Jari -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#376594: debbugs: Add 'notbug' to allowable tags. This is different from 'wontfix'
Package: debbugs Severity: wishlist There is need for different tag for cases where the user as misunderstood or he didn't found the correct documentation. Marking such bugs 'closed' would better have tag 'notbug'. The 'wontfix' is really interpreted as 'I don't gime a d--m' as expressed in Debian devel. This is Feature request based on idea of Linas Evirblis in Debian devel. Jari See thread. http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/07/msg00064.html -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'stable') Architecture: i386 (i686) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Kernel: Linux 2.6.16-2-686 Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ISO-8859-1) (ignored: LC_ALL set to en_US) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
