Re: What does one do about a package maintainer with an attitude problem?
在 2013-7-23 AM2:55，Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com写道： It's kinda silly to try handling it like a secret, because that makes it even more difficult to comment on it. One can easily search bugzilla for your email address (using regexp) and find the tickets you've reported. So, let's get some details: * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/986938 * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/986935 That package is maintained by three packagers: * https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/bugs/cinnamon - https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/cinnamon Try to talk to all of them via the packagename-ow...@fedoraproject.org address. If you consider yourself a part of the Fedora community, see how you could contribute to improving the packages (e.g. by signing up as a co-maintainer, so you could apply fixes yourself). Should we 'invite' the problem person to this thread? I think we can let the packager explain why he did that. Sent from Note I -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: What does one do about a package maintainer with an attitude problem?
On Mon, 22 Jul 2013, Jonathan Kamens wrote: I filed another defect about the same package because one of its dialogs provided several pieces of incorrect information about a particular configuration setting and how to change it. He responded, Oh, that screen is wrong, we don't actually use that configuration setting. Here's the setting you actually need to use, and how to examine or change it from the command line. Then he closed the defect with NOTABUG. I responded and WONTFIX I filed another defect about the same page explaining exactly what I had done to cause the issue I was reporting. He closed the bug with INSUFFICIENT_DATA, without any comment about what exactly he found lacking in my reproduction steps. I didn't try to argue with him, because, well, I'd seen by this point how much good that would do. On Mon, 22 Jul 2013, Jonathan Kamens wrote: I have little interest in wasting my time engaging in pointless mediation that is just going to boil down to he-said, she-said, i.e., me saying, This There is at least one objective test that can be made: Someone should try to repoduce the problem from your bug report. Cannot do it myself. Cannot get past F14. -- Michael henne...@web.cs.ndsu.nodak.edu Nothing says it like words if you know how to use them. -- the Professional Organization of English Majors -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: What does one do about a package maintainer with an attitude problem?
On 07/23/2013 11:43 AM, Michael Hennebry wrote: There is at least one objective test that can be made: Someone should try to repoduce the problem from your bug report. Cannot do it myself. Cannot get past F14. ABRT bugs are often intermittent. As I noted in an earlier email message in this thread: ...reproduction steps are not the only way that a bug can be tracked down. ABRT bugs, for example, include a stack trace and a bunch of other information intended to allow the maintainer to try to track down the bug even if the user doesn't know exactly what caused the crash. This is, after all, the whole point of all that data that ABRT uploads. The maintainer we're talking about closed an ABRT bug with INSUFFICIENT_DATA seemingly without bothering to look at any of the ABRT data. Then when I added information to the defect about what caused that same crash for ME, he ignored it and did not reopen the bug. The other reason why it's a bad idea to close ABRT bugs with INSUFFICIENT_DATA is because ABRT doesn't add CC's to closed bugs, so it's impossible to find out how many people are being impacted by a crash bug if you close it. jik -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: What does one do about a package maintainer with an attitude problem?
On Mon, 2013-07-22 at 15:05 -0400, Fernando Cassia wrote: It seems to me like you don't know how to report bugs. Bug reports should include STEPS TO REPRODUCE, ALWAYS, it is not OPTIONAL. [voice=droll] So is is your stated position that intermittent or hard to reproduce bugs are 'someone else's problem' or are you asserting they they don't exist? Either it sounds kinda retarded, sir.[1] If the reporter knows how to reproduce a bug, of course they should report that. But an unexplainable failure is still a failure, and a report at least begins a conversation and provides an entry point for future reporters to search on and add to, eventually the hope being to collect enough clues to point to a solution. In a perfect world every bug report would include a complete breakdown of the problem. Or heck, if we are wishing we could just assume every user is a skilled developer who can code in every language, understand the OO.o, Firefox codebases AND troubleshoot ACPI bugs in the kernel and every bug report could be expected to include a patch as well. Or why not assume that every user is a registered Fedora dev and can just contribute a fixed package and we could eliminate bugzilla entirely. In reality even a bad bug report is better than silence, at least a bad report indicates that there is likely to be a real problem, even if it can't be solved yet. [1] Those not following recent U.S. news probably won't get the cultural reference. It's just a bad joke, not a flame. (A pot, kettle sorta gag.) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: What does one do about a package maintainer with an attitude problem?
On 07/23/2013 04:00 PM, Michael Hennebry wrote: Are all the bugs under discussion ABRT bugs? All of the bugs which prompted me to start this thread on the test list fall into one of two categories: reproducible bugs where reproduction steps were provided, and ABRT bugs. There are no bugs in the set which are neither reproducible nor generated by ABRT. Having said that, I agree with John Morris https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2013-July/117110.html that just because neither came from ABRT nor has reproduction steps included is not /ipso facto/ justification for the maintainer closing the bug with INSUFFICIENT_DATA without making any effort to obtain the additional data necessary to further pursue the bug. Furthermore, as I pointed out earlier in this thread, the bug status workflow document https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2013-July/117095.html agrees with me and John as well. jik -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: What does one do about a package maintainer with an attitude problem?
On Tue, 23 Jul 2013, Jonathan Kamens wrote: On 07/23/2013 04:00 PM, Michael Hennebry wrote: Are all the bugs under discussion ABRT bugs? All of the bugs which prompted me to start this thread on the test list fall into one of two categories: reproducible bugs where reproduction steps were provided, and ABRT bugs. There are no bugs in the set which are neither reproducible nor generated by ABRT. Having said that, I agree with John Morris https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2013-July/117110.html that just because neither came from ABRT nor has reproduction steps included is not /ipso facto/ justification for the maintainer closing the bug with INSUFFICIENT_DATA without making any effort to obtain the additional data necessary to further pursue the bug. Furthermore, as I pointed out earlier in this thread, the bug status workflow document https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2013-July/117095.html agrees with me and John as well. I'm not suggesting that either you or the maintainer behaved correctly or otherwise. I am suggesting that there might be one more bit of objective data available. If the steps to reproduce (children leave the room) are there now, you might re-open the bug and put in a comment asking others (plural) to reproduce the bug and report. If you get a report of successful reproduction, that would be objective evidence that the maintainer has the informaion he needs. -- Michael henne...@web.cs.ndsu.nodak.edu 25 And the Lord spake unto the Angel that guarded the gate, saying Where is the flaming sword which was given unto thee? 26 And the Angel said, I had it here a moment ago, must have put it down somewhere, forget my own head next. 27 And the Lord did not ask again.” -— Genesis, 3:25-27-- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: What does one do about a package maintainer with an attitude problem?
On 07/22/2013 12:44 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote: I'd suggest either the person's sponsor or https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Community_working_group How does one find out someone's sponsor? I looked at the Wiki page for the CWG, and it doesn't have any enforcement powers. Specific anti-duties of the CWG: playing the role of arbitrator... in a dispute; making judgments in a dispute. Frankly, I do not think this is a communication issue; I think the only way this is going to change is if somebody with the authority to do so tells this individual that the way he's maintaining his packages isn't OK and compels him to do things differently or find another way to spend his time. I have little interest in wasting my time engaging in pointless mediation that is just going to boil down to he-said, she-said, i.e., me saying, This is not how things are supposed to be done. Doing things this way is damaging to the community and to the Fedora project, and him responding, Yes, it is. No, it isn't. I've been involved with the FOSS community for long enough to know how such conversations turn out when there is no one in a position of authority to make and enforce judgments. jik -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: What does one do about a package maintainer with an attitude problem?
JK == Jonathan Kamens j...@kamens.us writes: JK How does one find out someone's sponsor? Look them up in the account system. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts/group/members/packager and filter it or go through the list. JK I looked at the Wiki page for the CWG, and it doesn't have any JK enforcement powers. Why are you concerned with enforcement powers? What is anyone going to do to a volunteer in any case? Go to their house and threaten them with violence unless they maintain their packages in the way you want them maintained? The only thing anyone can really do, besides communicate, is to remove the packager's privileges. Are you willing to maintain those packages yourself? (And if so, have you signed up to comaintain them?) Is having them removed from the distribution a better outcome than the status quo? - J -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: What does one do about a package maintainer with an attitude problem?
On 07/22/2013 12:58 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: Look them up in the account system. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts/group/members/packager and filter it or go through the list. Thank you. JK I looked at the Wiki page for the CWG, and it doesn't have any JK enforcement powers. Why are you concerned with enforcement powers? What is anyone going to do to a volunteer in any case? Go to their house and threaten them with violence unless they maintain their packages in the way you want them maintained? I am concerned about enforcement powers exactly because I do not think this is a question of packages being maintained the way [I] want them maintained, but rather a question of packages being maintained in a way that is of net benefit to the Fedora project and community. I believe that the maintainer in question is, objectively, failing to follow the Fedora package maintenance guidelines, and in so doing damaging the project and community. However, I acknowledge that this is a /subjective/ evaluation of the /objective/ question about whether the guidelines are being followed, and that pursuing my beliefs further in the absence of someone who is able to make definitive, authoritative determinations about them would do even more damage to the project and community than I believe is already being done. I've been around the blocks a few times. I know how this stuff works. If it's just going to come down to me disagreeing with the package maintainer about how he's doing his job, with no one willing or able to step in and put a stop to it, then I'm just going to drop it. The only thing anyone can really do, besides communicate, There is a difference between communication that comes from one of the bug reporters this maintainer is shafting and from a disinterested third party. There is a difference between a bug reporter who has no formal position within the organization and someone who does. Perhaps the maintainer's sponsor will be able to talk some sense into him, and I will pursue that avenue. But the CWG, given that it is self-admittedly not willing to make judgments about the issues brought before it, is not going to be able to provide the kind of communication that is likely to improve the situation. is to remove the packager's privileges. Are you willing to maintain those packages yourself? (And if so, have you signed up to comaintain them?) Is having them removed from the distribution a better outcome than the status quo? This is a false dichotomy. There is a third choice, which is trying to find some avenue that has the potential to convince the maintainer to do things differently, but settling for him continuing to maintain them the way he is now if that fails. And there is a fourth choice, which is seeing if there is anyone else willing to maintain the packages, but again, settling for the current maintainer continuing if no one else steps forward. Frankly, the particular package that I've been attempting to report bugs about (and, by the way, while this thread was ongoing, the maintainer closed yet another bug report of main with INSUFFICIENT_DATA without comment, despite the fact that I described exactly how to reproduce the issue) is nearly unusable due to several serious bugs (one of which, e.g., causes /var/log/messages to be spammed with 20MB of log entries per hour) that the maintainer hasn't shown any indication of intending to do anything about. jik -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: What does one do about a package maintainer with an attitude problem?
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Jonathan Kamens j...@kamens.us wrote: I have little interest in wasting my time engaging in pointless mediation that is just going to boil down to he-said, she-said, If mediation is not something you're interested in, because your time is too valuable (but apparently, the module owner time's is not, as you feel free to waste HIS time with a bug report that lacks the steps to reproduce), then what is it that you're asking for? For him to be removed from the project? Problicly reprimanded? hanged on main square? FC -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: What does one do about a package maintainer with an attitude problem?
On 07/22/2013 03:05 PM, Fernando Cassia wrote: It seems to me like you don't know how to report bugs. Bug reports should include STEPS TO REPRODUCE, ALWAYS, it is not OPTIONAL. First of all, I have, in fact, included reproduction steps in all of the bugs we're discussing here. I am dissatisfied with the way those bugs were handled exactly because the maintainer closed them with INSUFFICIENT_DATA despite the fact that reproduction steps were provided. In short, your interpretation of the events in question is factually incorrect. Second, reproduction steps are not the only way that a bug can be tracked down. ABRT bugs, for example, include a stack trace and a bunch of other information intended to allow the maintainer to try to track down the bug even if the user doesn't know exactly what caused the crash. This is, after all, the whole point of all that data that ABRT uploads. The maintainer we're talking about closed an ABRT bug with INSUFFICIENT_DATA seemingly without bothering to look at any of the ABRT data. Then when I added information to the defect about what caused that same crash for ME, he ignored it and did not reopen the bug. Including the steps after the fact doesn't pardon you for the incorrect reporting to begin with. Even if you were right that I had reported bugs without providing reproduction steps, that would not justify the package maintainer treating me or any other user rudely and not even bothering to put a comment in the defect asking for the additional required information. Maintainers are expected to act like grown-ups and treat users, even clueless users, with respect. From BugStatusWorkFlow http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/BugStatusWorkFlow: Bugs can be closed as *INSUFFICIENT_DATA* by a triager or maintainer if it seems impossible or very unlikely that the reporter will be willing or able to provide sufficient information. That is hardly a determination that can be made by the maintainer when he hasn't even asked the reporter for the missing information. Oh, and there's this too: The /needinfo/ flag is added by bug triagers or maintainers when adequate information is missing to move the bug towards resolution. *That* is what the maintainer of a package is supposed to do when the reporter does not provide sufficient information. jik -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: What does one do about a package maintainer with an attitude problem?
On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 15:08:06 -0400, Fernando Cassia wrote: On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Jonathan Kamens wrote: I have little interest in wasting my time engaging in pointless mediation that is just going to boil down to he-said, she-said, If mediation is not something you're interested in, because your time is too valuable (but apparently, the module owner time's is not, as you feel free to waste HIS time with a bug report that lacks the steps to reproduce), ??? Jonathan pointed out that he had added reproduction steps to the tickets. That's why we need to discuss details - specific tickets. For example: I posted my own reproduction steps in the bug and he didn't reopen it. Here it's mandatory to examine how long has been waited between posting the steps and deciding that the ticket won't be reopened. Further, the reporter can reopen tickets, too. So, why has the ticket not been reopened by the reporter? *Then* it would get more interesting, if none of the assignee/watchbugzilla packagers would respond anymore at all. -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
What does one do about a package maintainer with an attitude problem?
What can be done about a package maintainer with, for lack of a better term, an ongoing attitude problem? Here are some examples of interactions I've had with this individual. I am trying to be circumspect because I'm not trying to engage in public shaming, but I really need some advice... The maintainer closed an abrt crash report about a package with INSUFFICIENT_DATA. He didn't actually ask the reporter of the issue for any additional information before closing it. I asked why in the bug, and he responded, No steps to reproduce = closed bug. Why should we have to ask as it takes valuable time? Leaving aside for the fact that I think he's wrong about that to begin with, I posted my own reproduction steps in the bug and he didn't reopen it. I filed another defect about the same package because one of its dialogs provided several pieces of incorrect information about a particular configuration setting and how to change it. He responded, Oh, that screen is wrong, we don't actually use that configuration setting. Here's the setting you actually need to use, and how to examine or change it from the command line. Then he closed the defect with NOTABUG. I responded and pointed out that surely it was a bug that the dialog gave incorrect information about both the value of the setting and how to change it, and surely it was a but that the setting could only be changed from the command line. He ignored my comment and did not reopen the bug. I filed another defect about the same page explaining exactly what I had done to cause the issue I was reporting. He closed the bug with INSUFFICIENT_DATA, without any comment about what exactly he found lacking in my reproduction steps. I didn't try to argue with him, because, well, I'd seen by this point how much good that would do. I am reluctant to criticize the volunteers without whom Fedora would not exist, but at the same time, I think this package maintainer is doing a poor job of maintaining this package (and, I assume, the others he maintains), doing a poor job of providing feedback about issues like this to the upstream maintainers, and scaring away end users from filing defects about real issues. Is there anything that can be done? Thanks, jik ** -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: What does one do about a package maintainer with an attitude problem?
On 07/22/2013 03:21 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: Here it's mandatory to examine how long has been waited between posting the steps and deciding that the ticket won't be reopened. The maintainer in question has been active on bugzilla (as noted previously, he closed two other bugs of mine with INSUFFICIENT_DATA) /after/ I posted the reproduction steps, so it seems clear that were he planning on reopening the ABRT ticket based on my additional posted information, he would have already done so. Further, the reporter can reopen tickets, too. So, why has the ticket not been reopened by the reporter? In the past, I have been yelled at rather aggressively by some package maintainers for reopening tickets which I felt were closed inappropriately. Certainly not all package maintainers act that way, but some do, and my recent experience with this particular package maintainers suggests that getting into an CLOSE / OPEN / CLOSE ... back-and-forth with him would not be a wise strategy. jik -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: What does one do about a package maintainer with an attitude problem?
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Jonathan Kamens j...@kamens.us wrote: What can be done about a package maintainer with, for lack of a better term, an ongoing attitude problem? Here are some examples of interactions I've had with this individual. I am trying to be circumspect because I'm not trying to engage in public shaming, but I really need some advice... The maintainer closed an abrt crash report about a package with INSUFFICIENT_DATA. He didn't actually ask the reporter of the issue for any additional information before closing it. I asked why in the bug, and he responded, No steps to reproduce = closed bug. Why should we have to ask as it takes valuable time? Leaving aside for the fact that I think he's wrong about that to begin with, I posted my own reproduction steps in the bug and he didn't reopen it. I filed another defect about the same package because one of its dialogs provided several pieces of incorrect information about a particular configuration setting and how to change it. He responded, Oh, that screen is wrong, we don't actually use that configuration setting. Here's the setting you actually need to use, and how to examine or change it from the command line. Then he closed the defect with NOTABUG. I responded and pointed out that surely it was a bug that the dialog gave incorrect information about both the value of the setting and how to change it, and surely it was a but that the setting could only be changed from the command line. He ignored my comment and did not reopen the bug. I filed another defect about the same page explaining exactly what I had done to cause the issue I was reporting. He closed the bug with INSUFFICIENT_DATA, without any comment about what exactly he found lacking in my reproduction steps. I didn't try to argue with him, because, well, I'd seen by this point how much good that would do. I am reluctant to criticize the volunteers without whom Fedora would not exist, but at the same time, I think this package maintainer is doing a poor job of maintaining this package (and, I assume, the others he maintains), doing a poor job of providing feedback about issues like this to the upstream maintainers, and scaring away end users from filing defects about real issues. Is there anything that can be done? I'd suggest either the person's sponsor or https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Community_working_group -J Thanks, jik ** -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test -- http://cecinestpasunefromage.wordpress.com/ in your fear, seek only peace in your fear, seek only love -d. bowie -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: What does one do about a package maintainer with an attitude problem?
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Jonathan Kamens j...@kamens.us wrote: On 07/22/2013 12:44 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote: I'd suggest either the person's sponsor or https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Community_working_group How does one find out someone's sponsor? I looked at the Wiki page for the CWG, and it doesn't have any enforcement powers. Specific anti-duties of the CWG: playing the role of arbitrator... in a dispute; making judgments in a dispute. Frankly, I do not think this is a communication issue; I think the only way this is going to change is if somebody with the authority to do so tells this individual that the way he's maintaining his packages isn't OK and compels him to do things differently or find another way to spend his time. I have little interest in wasting my time engaging in pointless mediation that is just going to boil down to he-said, she-said, i.e., me saying, This is not how things are supposed to be done. Doing things this way is damaging to the community and to the Fedora project, and him responding, Yes, it is. No, it isn't. I've been involved with the FOSS community for long enough to know how such conversations turn out when there is no one in a position of authority to make and enforce judgments. If you have a FAS login you can look it up there. If not, you could have a trusted party who you know does have a FAS account look it up for you. If you're not sure CWB is the right venue, you could log a Trac for FESCO. -J jik -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test -- http://cecinestpasunefromage.wordpress.com/ in your fear, seek only peace in your fear, seek only love -d. bowie -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: What does one do about a package maintainer with an attitude problem?
Aside from the people problems, perhaps bugzilla could be changed so that certain status paths preclude closing the bug? In my personal experience, I choose to not close *any* bug opened by a customer - it's up to them to decide if the issue has been resolved to their satisfaction. Instead, I put it in some waiting for customer to close state so they know the next step is up to them, and let the system time it out if they ignore it. Perhaps in this case, any state that implies waiting on reporter would stop anyone else from closing the bug, but let the system time it out and auto-close it if the reporter ignores it? So, a maintainer could close the bug if there were a valid reason to close the bug (can't/won't fix, already fixed, dup, old version, etc) but not if they just didn't have enough information to reproduce it (can't reproduce, need-info, missing abrt file, etc). -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: What does one do about a package maintainer with an attitude problem?
On 07/22/2013 03:47 PM, DJ Delorie wrote: Perhaps in this case, any state that implies waiting on reporter would stop anyone else from closing the bug, but let the system time it out and auto-close it if the reporter ignores it? This is exactly how /needinfo/, which we already have, is supposed to work. jik -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: What does one do about a package maintainer with an attitude problem?
On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 15:26:43 -0400, Jonathan Kamens wrote: The maintainer in question has been active on bugzilla (as noted previously, he closed two other bugs of mine with INSUFFICIENT_DATA) /after/ I posted the reproduction steps, so it seems clear that were he planning on reopening the ABRT ticket based on my additional posted information, he would have already done so. You cannot be sure that the assignee (or a co-maintainer) won't reopen the ticket later, e.g. when noticing a bugzilla notification in a special mail folder. It could even be that the ticket has been closed by mistake. In the past, I have been yelled at rather aggressively by some package maintainers for reopening tickets which I felt were closed inappropriately. Aggressively? That's sad to hear, but again, it would need a concrete example before one could judge about it. Certainly not all package maintainers act that way, but some do, and my recent experience with this particular package maintainers suggests that getting into an CLOSE / OPEN / CLOSE ... back-and-forth with him would not be a wise strategy. Well, then we disagree. Especially when the tickets get closed without a rationale (= a real comment and not just the Status/Resolution field), it would be wise to reopen it at least once and wait for the assignee's reaction. We're not talking about hours here, but days up to a few weeks before reaching the conclusion that the ticket gets ignored. Only then you've got usable input for others (e.g. sponsors or FESCo). And, of course, this gets even more interesting when your ticket contains a solution. -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: What does one do about a package maintainer with an attitude problem?
On Mon, 2013-07-22 at 15:47 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote: Aside from the people problems, perhaps bugzilla could be changed so that certain status paths preclude closing the bug? In my personal experience, I choose to not close *any* bug opened by a customer - it's up to them to decide if the issue has been resolved to their satisfaction. Instead, I put it in some waiting for customer to close state so they know the next step is up to them, and let the system time it out if they ignore it. Perhaps in this case, any state that implies waiting on reporter would stop anyone else from closing the bug, but let the system time it out and auto-close it if the reporter ignores it? So, a maintainer could close the bug if there were a valid reason to close the bug (can't/won't fix, already fixed, dup, old version, etc) but not if they just didn't have enough information to reproduce it (can't reproduce, need-info, missing abrt file, etc). This would work out horribly in practice. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
