Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion: INVALID - NOCHANGE in bugzilla
Kevin F. Quinn wrote: People reporting bugs often get annoyed when their bug is marked INVALID; especially when they're relatively new to the Gentoo Experience. We've all seen it many times, I'm sure. I know I'm coming in late on this one, but I can see how having a bug marked as INVALID with no explanation could be hurtful to the reporter. However, if you add a comment to the effect of: Marking this as 'invalid' because it's not really a bug, just unexpected. For a longer discussion of the issue, see [[some reference link]]. and then mark the bug as INVALID, maybe that's all that would be needed. -- Jim Ramsay Gentoo/Linux Developer (rox,gkrellm) signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion: INVALID - NOCHANGE in bugzilla
On Saturday 24 March 2007, Jakub Moc wrote: Kevin F. Quinn napsal(a): [snip] See, I don't really care how the reporter feels, if something's not a bug, then it's not a bug. Don't invent confusing 'politically correct' junk for this just because someone might feel 'offended'. One issue is actually with how to close bugs that were caused by a failure at the user side that was resolved. That might be marked NOCHANGE instead of INVALID. Sometimes the bugs are even valid in the sense that it makes sense that the user did something wrong, or forgot to run revdep-rebuild. Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net pgpewwhso5Dme.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion: INVALID - NOCHANGE in bugzilla
Kevin F. Quinn wrote: I know I've seen many instances where the word INVALID has got peoples hackles up, [...] This is the same issue I have with NOTABUG - it's like saying, you're wrong, shouldn't have raised the report, just perhaps not as in-your-face as INVALID. Precisely. NOTABUG sounds less harsh than INVALID (for some just a little, for others a lot), it is less likely to irk people, and it is also used elsewhere, so why not use it instead? (But don't use NOCHANGE, that is too cryptic.) Benno -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion: INVALID - NOCHANGE in bugzilla
On 2007/03/25, Benno Schulenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Precisely. NOTABUG sounds less harsh than INVALID (for some just a little, for others a lot), it is less likely to irk people, and it is also used elsewhere, so why not use it instead? Not that i care that much, but imho INVALID is more accurate in some cases. For instance, if one reports about app/foo being broken but happens to have ricer CFLAGS in his emerge info, his report will be closed as INVALID... which is exactly what it is: an invalid report, because not made in sane conditions. This resolution usualy comes with a note which tell to reopen if the bug still happen after app/foo has been recompiled with sane CFLAGS. The possibity that there is a real bug in app/foo is left open. At the contrary, NOTABUG sounds to me like a definitive answer. -- TGL. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion: INVALID - NOCHANGE in bugzilla
Kevin F. Quinn napsal(a): Arguably no bug is invalid in the normal sense - if someone raises an issue, they have an issue, regardless what we think of it. To that end I'd like to propose bugzilla be reconfigured to use the phrase NOCHANGE instead of INVALID. NOCHANGE would indicate that whatever the original issue, no change is needed on our part to resolve the issue. Any reasons why this would be a bad idea? NOCHANGE sucks... If you really insist on doing anything, then use NOTABUG. -- Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E ... still no signature ;) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion: INVALID - NOCHANGE in bugzilla
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 18:34:21 +0100 Kevin F. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: People reporting bugs often get annoyed when their bug is marked INVALID; especially when they're relatively new to the Gentoo Experience. We've all seen it many times, I'm sure. Arguably no bug is invalid in the normal sense - if someone raises an issue, they have an issue, regardless what we think of it. To that end I'd like to propose bugzilla be reconfigured to use the phrase NOCHANGE instead of INVALID. NOCHANGE would indicate that whatever the original issue, no change is needed on our part to resolve the issue. _If_ it's changed then please to something else, NOCHANGE would overlap with other values (WONTFIX, CANTFIX, WORKSFORME) and isn't that obvious to me at least. A fake resolution that's mentioned on IRC from time to time is NOTABUG which would fit better here. Marius -- Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion: INVALID - NOCHANGE in bugzilla
On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 06:34:21PM +0100, Kevin F. Quinn wrote: People reporting bugs often get annoyed when their bug is marked INVALID; especially when they're relatively new to the Gentoo Experience. We've all seen it many times, I'm sure. But sometimes, just sometimes, the bugs are absolutely 100% invalid. Emerging nano broke my apache (random fake example with two unrelated packages)(or...are they...?) More important is to explain to the user *why* it is invalid, and leave it open to them to argue and reopen the bug. Better communication, not more convoluted closure flags, is the solution. IMHO. You know. Word. ~mcummings -- -o()o-- Michael Cummings |#gentoo-dev, #gentoo-perl Gentoo Perl Dev|on irc.freenode.net Gentoo/SPARC Gentoo/AMD64 GPG: 0543 6FA3 5F82 3A76 3BF7 8323 AB5C ED4E 9E7F 4E2E -o()o-- Hi, I'm a .signature virus! Please copy me in your ~/.signature. pgpNuJuZowzge.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion: INVALID - NOCHANGE in bugzilla
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 19:14:38 +0100 Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 18:34:21 +0100 Kevin F. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: People reporting bugs often get annoyed when their bug is marked INVALID; especially when they're relatively new to the Gentoo Experience. We've all seen it many times, I'm sure. Arguably no bug is invalid in the normal sense - if someone raises an issue, they have an issue, regardless what we think of it. To that end I'd like to propose bugzilla be reconfigured to use the phrase NOCHANGE instead of INVALID. NOCHANGE would indicate that whatever the original issue, no change is needed on our part to resolve the issue. _If_ it's changed then please to something else, NOCHANGE would overlap with other values (WONTFIX, CANTFIX, WORKSFORME) and isn't that obvious to me at least. A fake resolution that's mentioned on IRC from time to time is NOTABUG which would fit better here. Well, I meant for NOCHANGE to be no change needed, but figured NOCHANGEREQUIRED is a bit longwinded. It implies the issue is understood, it has been explained to the bug reporter, but requires no change to anything: CANTFIX: the problem exists, but no sensible way to fix it exists WONTFIX: the problem exists, but for some reason it won't be fixed WORKSFORME: can't replicate NOCHANGE: no change needed The problem I have with NOTABUG is pretty much the same problem I have with INVALID - it's not as severe, but it still does the same thing to the user (i.e. slaps him with a wet fish rather than a frozen one). -- Kevin F. Quinn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion: INVALID - NOCHANGE in bugzilla
I think that there is a problem of concept. If a bug is marked INVALID, it's because it is not a real bug. Marking a bug NOCHANGE or NOCHANGEREQUIRED, not only overlaps with other resolutions, but fails to better explain the reason why the bug was closed, whereas INVALID indeed means that the reported bug is simply not a bug or that it was reported to the wrong place. Even though it might look harsh to the user to get such a resolution, it's also harsh for the developers to have to handle bugs that are not related to them. Still, changing the name from INVALID to NOTABUG + NOTOURBUG does make sense, as the meaning doesn't get lost. Kevin F. Quinn wrote: On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 19:14:38 +0100 Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 18:34:21 +0100 Kevin F. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: People reporting bugs often get annoyed when their bug is marked INVALID; especially when they're relatively new to the Gentoo Experience. We've all seen it many times, I'm sure. Arguably no bug is invalid in the normal sense - if someone raises an issue, they have an issue, regardless what we think of it. To that end I'd like to propose bugzilla be reconfigured to use the phrase NOCHANGE instead of INVALID. NOCHANGE would indicate that whatever the original issue, no change is needed on our part to resolve the issue. _If_ it's changed then please to something else, NOCHANGE would overlap with other values (WONTFIX, CANTFIX, WORKSFORME) and isn't that obvious to me at least. A fake resolution that's mentioned on IRC from time to time is NOTABUG which would fit better here. Well, I meant for NOCHANGE to be no change needed, but figured NOCHANGEREQUIRED is a bit longwinded. It implies the issue is understood, it has been explained to the bug reporter, but requires no change to anything: CANTFIX: the problem exists, but no sensible way to fix it exists WONTFIX: the problem exists, but for some reason it won't be fixed WORKSFORME: can't replicate NOCHANGE: no change needed The problem I have with NOTABUG is pretty much the same problem I have with INVALID - it's not as severe, but it still does the same thing to the user (i.e. slaps him with a wet fish rather than a frozen one). -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion: INVALID - NOCHANGE in bugzilla
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 14:48:25 -0400 Michael Cummings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 06:34:21PM +0100, Kevin F. Quinn wrote: People reporting bugs often get annoyed when their bug is marked INVALID; especially when they're relatively new to the Gentoo Experience. We've all seen it many times, I'm sure. But sometimes, just sometimes, the bugs are absolutely 100% invalid. Emerging nano broke my apache (random fake example with two unrelated packages)(or...are they...?) Well, if someone raises a bug, they have an issue. They may not understand it properly, and may frequently mis-diagnose it, but there's still an issue for them. To take your example, emerge nano broke my apache actually implies that apache isn't working properly for the reporter - just because they incorrectly assign blame to an emerge of nano doesn't mean everything is peachy. As the details are eked out of the reporter, the summary may become ssl support in apache broken with openssl-1.2.3.4, IYSWIM. We shouldn't be closing bugs as INVALID just because the original reporter mis-diagnosed the problem. There are cases where people raise a bug because they've mis-understood something and they don't realise it's behaving correctly - i.e. the behaviour they are complaining about is actually as-designed expected behaviour. But even then, the user had an issue - resolved by the explanation, even if the outcome is no change to anything. Closing it INVALID comes across too often as oh you're so stupid to raise this as a bug and there's no need for that to happen, imo. NOTABUG would do well enough in that sort of case I suppose, but there's still an overtone of you shouldn't have raised this to it. More important is to explain to the user *why* it is invalid, and leave it open to them to argue and reopen the bug. Better communication, Certainly good explanations as to why a bug is being closed are to be encouraged. My issue isn't with that - it's with the way that the marking INVALID is perceived, when there's no need to be so harsh. not more convoluted closure flags, is the solution. IMHO. You know. Word. The idea was to _replace_ INVALID with a less provocative name, not add more closure flags. I certainly agree that we don't need more closure flags. -- Kevin F. Quinn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion: INVALID - NOCHANGE in bugzilla
Kevin F. Quinn wrote: The problem I have with NOTABUG is pretty much the same problem I have with INVALID - it's not as severe, but it still does the same thing to the user (i.e. slaps him with a wet fish rather than a frozen one). Maybe, just maybe, the problem is not with the resolution name, but with peeps who cannot accept they could be wrong. For the most of us, INVALID doesn't mean YOUAREAMORON. A NOTOURBUG resolution would be pointless. I cannot imagine a possible scenario in which I could choose such resolution over the existing ones. Probably you want it as a replacement for UPSTREAM? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion: INVALID - NOCHANGE in bugzilla
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 22:07:08 +0100 Kevin F. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Certainly good explanations as to why a bug is being closed are to be encouraged. My issue isn't with that - it's with the way that the marking INVALID is perceived, when there's no need to be so harsh. And NOCHANGE could be perceived as We're not going to change this anyway, so you're not really solving any problem by just changing a label. Some people will only ever be happy if they get the FIXED label on their reports. Marius -- Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion: INVALID - NOCHANGE in bugzilla
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 22:02:48 +0100 Ioannis Aslanidis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think that there is a problem of concept. If a bug is marked INVALID, it's because it is not a real bug. Marking a bug NOCHANGE or NOCHANGEREQUIRED, not only overlaps with other resolutions, but fails to better explain the reason why the bug was closed, whereas INVALID indeed means that the reported bug is simply not a bug or that it was reported to the wrong place. I don't think it overlaps, as I described before (whether it does or not comes down to how you define it, of course). As to knowing why the bug was closed, personally I would rather the closure flag indicate the impact on the tree etc - i.e. whether something was changed (FIXED), could have changed but didn't (WONTFIX) or would have changed but couldn't be changed (CANTFIX) or in no way indicated a change (NOCHANGE). Bugs filed in the wrong place should just be re-assigned to the right place, not closed INVALID (at least, not at the point where it's still in the wrong place). Even though it might look harsh to the user to get such a resolution, it's also harsh for the developers to have to handle bugs that are not related to them. Still, changing the name from INVALID to NOTABUG + NOTOURBUG does make sense, as the meaning doesn't get lost. I don't think we need NOTOURBUG. Anything that's a real bug, but not a bug in what we do, can be marked UPSTREAM. Kevin F. Quinn wrote: On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 19:14:38 +0100 Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 18:34:21 +0100 Kevin F. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: People reporting bugs often get annoyed when their bug is marked INVALID; especially when they're relatively new to the Gentoo Experience. We've all seen it many times, I'm sure. Arguably no bug is invalid in the normal sense - if someone raises an issue, they have an issue, regardless what we think of it. To that end I'd like to propose bugzilla be reconfigured to use the phrase NOCHANGE instead of INVALID. NOCHANGE would indicate that whatever the original issue, no change is needed on our part to resolve the issue. _If_ it's changed then please to something else, NOCHANGE would overlap with other values (WONTFIX, CANTFIX, WORKSFORME) and isn't that obvious to me at least. A fake resolution that's mentioned on IRC from time to time is NOTABUG which would fit better here. Well, I meant for NOCHANGE to be no change needed, but figured NOCHANGEREQUIRED is a bit longwinded. It implies the issue is understood, it has been explained to the bug reporter, but requires no change to anything: CANTFIX: the problem exists, but no sensible way to fix it exists WONTFIX: the problem exists, but for some reason it won't be fixed WORKSFORME: can't replicate NOCHANGE: no change needed The problem I have with NOTABUG is pretty much the same problem I have with INVALID - it's not as severe, but it still does the same thing to the user (i.e. slaps him with a wet fish rather than a frozen one). -- Kevin F. Quinn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion: INVALID - NOCHANGE in bugzilla
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 23:17:52 +0200 Alin Năstac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin F. Quinn wrote: The problem I have with NOTABUG is pretty much the same problem I have with INVALID - it's not as severe, but it still does the same thing to the user (i.e. slaps him with a wet fish rather than a frozen one). Maybe, just maybe, the problem is not with the resolution name, but with peeps who cannot accept they could be wrong. For the most of us, INVALID doesn't mean YOUAREAMORON. My point is that if someone raises a bug, they clearly have an issue - if they didn't, they wouldn't have raised a bug. Closing INVALID is like saying they never had an issue - when clearly they did have an issue, even if it was just an issue of understanding. A NOTOURBUG resolution would be pointless. I cannot imagine a possible scenario in which I could choose such resolution over the existing ones. Probably you want it as a replacement for UPSTREAM? Er, I never suggested NOTOURBUG - as you say we already have UPSTREAM. -- Kevin F. Quinn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion: INVALID - NOCHANGE in bugzilla
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 22:46:07 +0100 Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 22:07:08 +0100 Kevin F. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Certainly good explanations as to why a bug is being closed are to be encouraged. My issue isn't with that - it's with the way that the marking INVALID is perceived, when there's no need to be so harsh. And NOCHANGE could be perceived as We're not going to change this anyway, No, that would be WONTFIX (or CANTFIX). NOCHANGE implies there is nothing wrong with the existing code, so there's no question of whether we should change anything or not. so you're not really solving any problem by just changing a label. Some people will only ever be happy if they get the FIXED label on their reports. I'm not sure that's so. There are certainly many who don't like their reports marked INVALID, at least initially. I know I've seen many instances where the word INVALID has got peoples hackles up, yet after it's explained that it doesn't imply they shouldn't have raised the report in the first place, they're ok (I've explained to people before that the INVALID marking just indicates that there's no change required to the tree). This is the same issue I have with NOTABUG - it's like saying, you're wrong, shouldn't have raised the report, just perhaps not as in-your-face as INVALID. Still, it looks like I'm being out-gunned on this one, and I'm starting to repeat myself, so I'll be quiet for a bit... -- Kevin F. Quinn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion: INVALID - NOCHANGE in bugzilla
Kevin F. Quinn napsal(a): [snip] See, I don't really care how the reporter feels, if something's not a bug, then it's not a bug. Don't invent confusing 'politically correct' junk for this just because someone might feel 'offended'. Thanks. -- Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E ... still no signature ;) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion: INVALID - NOCHANGE in bugzilla
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007, Jakub Moc wrote: Kevin F. Quinn napsal(a): [snip] See, I don't really care how the reporter feels, if something's not a bug, then it's not a bug. In which case it must be a feature, so why not use the keyword FEATURE? Don't invent confusing 'politically correct' junk for this just because someone might feel 'offended'. I think that insufficient people in the open source and free software movements realize that in the real world there are differing cultures all of whom have differing sensitivities to language constructs. imnsho it's very important not to cause deliberate offense, because doing so perpetuates the idea that FOSS movement people are an unpleasant bunch of individuals. This causes users to make the choice of using computer products from elsewhere, and developers to spend their free time doing other things. -- CS -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion: INVALID - NOCHANGE in bugzilla
Christopher Sawtell napsal(a): See, I don't really care how the reporter feels, if something's not a bug, then it's not a bug. In which case it must be a feature, so why not use the keyword FEATURE? And why use it? Anything else than 'so that we are 'politically correct'? Sorry, this doesn't go anywhere. Don't invent confusing 'politically correct' junk for this just because someone might feel 'offended'. I think that insufficient people in the open source and free software movements realize that in the real world there are differing cultures all of whom have differing sensitivities to language constructs. imnsho it's very important not to cause deliberate offense, because doing so perpetuates the idea that FOSS movement people are an unpleasant bunch of individuals. This causes users to make the choice of using computer products from elsewhere, and developers to spend their free time doing other things. Oh, so resolving 'INVALID' a bug for people that report crap like 'oh, my sci-mathematics/*' thingy got horribly broken with -ffast-math' causes an offense to them? Well, that's a good thing, maybe they'll actually use their brain next time. -- Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E ... still no signature ;) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion: INVALID - NOCHANGE in bugzilla
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 00:05:02 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh, so resolving 'INVALID' a bug for people that report crap like 'oh, my sci-mathematics/*' thingy got horribly broken with -ffast-math' causes an offense to them? Well, that's a good thing, maybe they'll actually use their brain next time. So you feel that idiocy should be punished? -- Ciaran McCreesh -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion: INVALID - NOCHANGE in bugzilla
Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a): Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh, so resolving 'INVALID' a bug for people that report crap like 'oh, my sci-mathematics/*' thingy got horribly broken with -ffast-math' causes an offense to them? Well, that's a good thing, maybe they'll actually use their brain next time. So you feel that idiocy should be punished? It's already been punished as they've got their broken app; I just don't see why I should be forced to spend even more time on this. So, what's your question? If you ask whether INVALID is a valid resolution for bugs, then yeah, it absolutely is, and no, I don't see any need to change this. -- Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E ... still no signature ;) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Suggestion: INVALID - NOCHANGE in bugzilla
Christopher Sawtell wrote: On Sun, 25 Mar 2007, Jakub Moc wrote: Kevin F. Quinn napsal(a): [snip] See, I don't really care how the reporter feels, if something's not a bug, then it's not a bug. In which case it must be a feature, so why not use the keyword FEATURE? Why would we need a keyword for that? We already have enhancement as a possible value of the severity field. imnsho it's very important not to cause deliberate offense, because doing so perpetuates the idea that FOSS movement people are an unpleasant bunch of individuals. This causes users to make the choice of using computer products from elsewhere, and developers to spend their free time doing other things. FOSS _is_ a bunch of individuals, each with their own agenda. Whether they're unpleasant or not, it is a subjective issue. One of the FOSS strengths is always telling the truth, which applied to invalid bugs translates as closing them with INVALID resolution. If the reporter takes it as a personal offense, it is by all means his problem, not ours. Someone once said (Linus maybe?) Linux is user-friendly, only chooses its friends more carefully. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
