Re: BTS and the missing 'invalid' tag
Michael Banck mba...@debian.org wrote: On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 06:32:10PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote: Which is precisely what I don't think we need. There is no difference between invalid and this is an invalid bug, closing. Of course there is. After the closed bug got archived, it's no longer displayed by default for a bug search. So chances are that the next user encountering this non-bug will file it again. In this case, I'd tend to say that there is actually a bug: Move the documentation that explains why the behavior is intended to a more prominent, visible place. Regards, Frank -- Dr. Frank Küster Debian Developer (TeXLive) VCD Aschaffenburg-Miltenberg, ADFC Miltenberg B90/Grüne KV Miltenberg -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: BTS and the missing 'invalid' tag
Frank Küster fr...@debian.org (26/06/2009): In this case, I'd tend to say that there is actually a bug: Move the documentation that explains why the behavior is intended to a more prominent, visible place. OK, and once that done, what do you do when the bugs keep on being opened because people don't read the docs? Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
BTS and the missing 'invalid' tag
Hi, #531002 made me bring this to -devel. It seems Debian BTS fails in not offering an 'invalid' or 'notabug' tag for cases which are not covered by 'wontfix' [0]. I've found the following discussions about this issue: http://bugs.debian.org/227511 http://bugs.debian.org/376594 http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/11/msg01091.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/04/msg00793.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2008/02/msg00863.html (just a comment) For me it doesn't make sense to mark something as I will not fix if actually there's nothing to fix. I'm curious to know how other maintainers have addressed such cases in BTS. Also, I don't think usertag covers this need. It's not a standard, and I guess* 'invalid' situations are so common which should deserve something more consistent (useful for statistics, searches/filters etc). We know other very popular bug tracking systems offer a standard way to deal with bugs which are not in fact bugs. Surely it's not a reason to implement this in BTS; on the other hand, Debian development is not that different from other large free software projects. So we can at least consider they've got a reason to offer this feature (the same reason *I* see for Debian). * No, I don't have a proof as asked in #376594, that's the reason I would like to know other's opinions here. [0] http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#tags -- Tiago Bortoletto Vaz http://tiagovaz.org 0xA504FECA - http://pgp.mit.edu signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: BTS and the missing 'invalid' tag
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 13:24:48 -0300 Tiago Bortoletto Vaz ti...@debian-ba.org wrote: #531002 made me bring this to -devel. It seems Debian BTS fails in #not offering an 'invalid' or 'notabug' tag for cases which are not covered by 'wontfix' [0]. I've found the following discussions about this issue: Just put a comment in the message to $number-d...@bugs.debian.org that you're closing the bug as invalid. Closing doesn't mean that the bug has been accepted as valid. (That can be done with confirmed.) For me it doesn't make sense to mark something as I will not fix if actually there's nothing to fix. I'm curious to know how other maintainers have addressed such cases in BTS. Nothing to fix? close the bug. I don't see we need two different ways to close a bug. Invalid would still close the bug. -- Neil Williams = http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ http://e-mail.is-not-s.ms/ pgp5ODKOM1qrI.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: BTS and the missing 'invalid' tag
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 05:45:24PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote: On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 13:24:48 -0300 Tiago Bortoletto Vaz ti...@debian-ba.org wrote: #531002 made me bring this to -devel. It seems Debian BTS fails in #not offering an 'invalid' or 'notabug' tag for cases which are not covered by 'wontfix' [0]. I've found the following discussions about this issue: Just put a comment in the message to $number-d...@bugs.debian.org that you're closing the bug as invalid. Closing doesn't mean that the bug has been accepted as valid. (That can be done with confirmed.) This could be used for 'wontfix' as well, so why do we need these tags once we can comment every situation? The thing is I consider important for a BTS making difference between what is an accepted (valid) bug and what is not after it is closed. Ok, you're right, this can be done with 'confirmed', but I'm not sure it would cover everything 'invalid' would cover (thinking). For me it doesn't make sense to mark something as I will not fix if actually there's nothing to fix. I'm curious to know how other maintainers have addressed such cases in BTS. Nothing to fix? close the bug. I don't see we need two different ways to close a bug. Invalid would still close the bug. No, it's not about two different ways to close a bug. It's about a standard (extra) info which will be saved for future references, like 'wontifx' and others tags do. Regards, -- Tiago Bortoletto Vaz http://tiagovaz.org 0xA504FECA - http://pgp.mit.edu signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: BTS and the missing 'invalid' tag
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 14:05:09 -0300 Tiago Bortoletto Vaz ti...@debian-ba.org wrote: On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 05:45:24PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote: On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 13:24:48 -0300 Tiago Bortoletto Vaz ti...@debian-ba.org wrote: #531002 made me bring this to -devel. It seems Debian BTS fails in #not offering an 'invalid' or 'notabug' tag for cases which are not covered by 'wontfix' [0]. I've found the following discussions about this issue: Just put a comment in the message to $number-d...@bugs.debian.org that you're closing the bug as invalid. Closing doesn't mean that the bug has been accepted as valid. (That can be done with confirmed.) This could be used for 'wontfix' as well, so why do we need these tags once we can comment every situation? wontfix does not close the bug - although maintainers differ on whether a wontfix bug ever gets closed. The thing is I consider important for a BTS making difference between what is an accepted (valid) bug and what is not after it is closed. Ok, you're right, this can be done with 'confirmed', but I'm not sure it would cover everything 'invalid' would cover (thinking). Any others can be covered within the comment. Nothing to fix? close the bug. I don't see we need two different ways to close a bug. Invalid would still close the bug. No, it's not about two different ways to close a bug. Which is precisely what I don't think we need. There is no difference between invalid and this is an invalid bug, closing. I'm sure a small shell script could generate a suitable command to bts to put the longer string in if you really want it. The bug still needs to closed with $number-d...@b.d.o. As far as the BTS is concerned, a bug is either open or closed. I don't see that there is a need for a third category. FTR, I think bugzilla have got this wrong because, by distinguishing between CLOSED and FIXED bugs, the need for INVALID becomes obvious. Closed in the BTS does not have to mean FIXED in bugzilla speak, it just means closed - the problem has been dealt with, to quote the BTS. Dealing with the problem doesn't have to mean fixing it, it can mean telling the reporter that no such problem ever actually existed. Once you distinguish between 'closed' and 'fixed', 'invalid' becomes redundant IMHO. It's about a standard (extra) info which will be saved for future references, like 'wontifx' and others tags do. The bug comment is always available. I've nothing a new invalid tag in the BTS per-se as long as it does *not* close the bug report, although that is not a particular improvement AFAICT over a combination of wontfix, unreproducible and moreinfo. -- Neil Williams = http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ http://e-mail.is-not-s.ms/ pgpo9ZkQTuvAQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: BTS and the missing 'invalid' tag
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009, Tiago Bortoletto Vaz wrote: Also, I don't think usertag covers this need. It's not a standard, and I guess* 'invalid' situations are so common which should deserve something more consistent (useful for statistics, searches/filters etc). In order for me to bother to add another tag,[1] people need to demonstrate repeated use of the tag as a usertag along with a specific rationale to go along with the tag. Further discussion is perfectly fine, but I'm personally much more convinced by action. Don Armstrong 1: At least, for tags that I'm not immediately convinced of their utility, anyway. -- It seems intuitively obvious to me, which means that it might be wrong -- Chris Torek http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: BTS and the missing 'invalid' tag
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 06:32:10PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote: Which is precisely what I don't think we need. There is no difference between invalid and this is an invalid bug, closing. Of course there is. After the closed bug got archived, it's no longer displayed by default for a bug search. So chances are that the next user encountering this non-bug will file it again. Keeping the bug open as invalid might make it more prominent to users that there is actually no bug to file. I am not saying invalid should be introduced, just why somebody might want to use it and what the difference to closing it is. Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: BTS and the missing 'invalid' tag
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 01:24:48PM -0300, Tiago Bortoletto Vaz wrote: (...) It seems Debian BTS fails in not offering an 'invalid' or 'notabug' tag for cases which are not covered by 'wontfix' [0]. (...) For me it doesn't make sense to mark something as I will not fix if actually there's nothing to fix. +1 I'm curious to know how other maintainers have addressed such cases in BTS. A workarond is using the tag wontfix combined with retitling the bug to something general like confusion about foo doing bar. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: BTS and the missing 'invalid' tag
Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org writes: Which is precisely what I don't think we need. There is no difference between invalid [as a standard tag] and this is an invalid bug, closing [in a message on the report]. Adding my clarifications above to show that there clearly is a difference: the proposal is that this semantic meaning can be indicated through a standard ‘invalid’ tag with a defined meaning, like ‘wontfix’ and ‘unreproducible’, so automated tools can know about it. -- \“I installed a skylight in my apartment. The people who live | `\ above me are furious!” —Steven Wright | _o__) | Ben Finney pgpeNbmr3kXlQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
