Re: Your Outstanding Requests and Closed bugs with Needinfo

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 10:05:18 -0300
Reartes Guillermo  wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> The mail "[Red Hat Bugzilla] Your Outstanding Requests" is showing me
> these items since some time ago.
> 
> These seems to have the NEEDINFO flag, but they are CLOSED (and
> several releases ago).
> 
> Should the closure of the bugreport have cancelled or provided the
> NEEDINFO?
> 
> 
> I really want to get rid of this list.

You should go able to go to each of these bugs and clear the needinfo.
Just say "These are end of life, clearing needinfo" and check the box
that says you are providing the info needed. 

kevin


pgpzIOLaZkevs.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Your Outstanding Requests on closed bugs

[Petr Spacek]

On 2.4.2015 01:58, Adam Williamson wrote:
 On Wed, 2015-04-01 at 13:56 -0400, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
 Humans I can
 understand having different views, but the tools should provide 
 the humans with
 what we need here.  In this case I think that means one of the 
 following:

 1) Require that the bot ignore bugs that are closed (assuming a 
 majority
 consensus agrees, which I understand isn't likely to happen)

 2) Require that the bot be configurable by individuals to 
 optionally ignore
 (1)

 Surely the right thing is to not have any “unreviewed” patches in a 
 closed bug by the time the bug is closed.  (New unreviewed patches 
 could arrive after the bug has been closed, same as new comments, 
 but that is AFAICS not the situation prompting this thread.)  
 Ignoring the inconsistent state of unreviewed patches in a closed 
 bug is at best a band-aid.

 If we modify bugzilla at all, I would suggest to modify it as to 
 resolve the review flags in patches while closing a bug (by marking 
 them as reviewed, as refused, by dropping the review=? flags, or 
 perhaps by saking).
 
 The mails do not just cover patch review. They cover the 'needinfo' 
 state as well: you get a reminder for any bug which has a 'needinfo' 
 flag set for you.

Which is IMHO a Good Thing. I personally add needinfo? to closed bugs when I
need to get more information about the issue, e.g. when writing a test for it
or so.

-- 
Petr Spacek  @  Red Hat
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Your Outstanding Requests on closed bugs

[Adam Williamson]

On Wed, 2015-04-01 at 13:56 -0400, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
  Humans I can
  understand having different views, but the tools should provide 
  the humans with
  what we need here.  In this case I think that means one of the 
  following:
  
  1) Require that the bot ignore bugs that are closed (assuming a 
  majority
  consensus agrees, which I understand isn't likely to happen)
  
  2) Require that the bot be configurable by individuals to 
  optionally ignore
  (1)
 
 Surely the right thing is to not have any “unreviewed” patches in a 
 closed bug by the time the bug is closed.  (New unreviewed patches 
 could arrive after the bug has been closed, same as new comments, 
 but that is AFAICS not the situation prompting this thread.)  
 Ignoring the inconsistent state of unreviewed patches in a closed 
 bug is at best a band-aid.
 
 If we modify bugzilla at all, I would suggest to modify it as to 
 resolve the review flags in patches while closing a bug (by marking 
 them as reviewed, as refused, by dropping the review=? flags, or 
 perhaps by saking).

The mails do not just cover patch review. They cover the 'needinfo' 
state as well: you get a reminder for any bug which has a 'needinfo' 
flag set for you.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Your Outstanding Requests on closed bugs

[Miloslav Trmač]

 Humans I can
 understand having different views, but the tools should provide the humans 
 with
 what we need here.  In this case I think that means one of the following:
 
 1) Require that the bot ignore bugs that are closed (assuming a majority
 consensus agrees, which I understand isn't likely to happen)
 
 2) Require that the bot be configurable by individuals to optionally ignore
 (1)

Surely the right thing is to not have any “unreviewed” patches in a closed bug 
by the time the bug is closed.  (New unreviewed patches could arrive after the 
bug has been closed, same as new comments, but that is AFAICS not the situation 
prompting this thread.)  Ignoring the inconsistent state of unreviewed patches 
in a closed bug is at best a band-aid.

If we modify bugzilla at all, I would suggest to modify it as to resolve the 
review flags in patches while closing a bug (by marking them as reviewed, as 
refused, by dropping the review=? flags, or perhaps by saking).
 Mirek
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Your Outstanding Requests on closed bugs

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 30.3.2015 v 22:17 Neil Horman napsal(a):
 On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 11:27:17AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
 On Mon, 2015-03-30 at 09:55 -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
 On Mon, 30 Mar 2015, Michael Cronenworth wrote:

 On 03/30/2015 08:39 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:
 There are currently no flags set at all.
 Check the flags on the attachment itself (your second link).
 Ohh. there is shows up. How odd. Thanks. Now at least I know how
 to get rid of it, although I think it should clear out all requests
 for closed bugs.
 This in practice isn't a safe assumption. People do legitimately 
 discuss closed bugs, including requesting and providing information. 
 Closed does not always imply no further discussion is needed or 
 desired.
 I would assert the opposite to be true.  That is to say a state of closed by
 definition implies that a bug no longer needs discussion or consideration.  In
 the converse, a bug that is still receiving updates in the form of comments,
 likely should not be in the state closed.

Is Thank you comment allowed after the bug is closed?


Vít



 Neil

 -- 
 Adam Williamson
 Fedora QA Community Monkey
 IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
 http://www.happyassassin.net

 -- 
 devel mailing list
 devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Your Outstanding Requests on closed bugs

[Neil Horman]

On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 01:37:23PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
 On Mon, 2015-03-30 at 16:17 -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
  On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 11:27:17AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
   On Mon, 2015-03-30 at 09:55 -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2015, Michael Cronenworth wrote:

 On 03/30/2015 08:39 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:
  
  There are currently no flags set at all.
 
 Check the flags on the attachment itself (your second link).

Ohh. there is shows up. How odd. Thanks. Now at least I know how
to get rid of it, although I think it should clear out all 
requests
for closed bugs.
   
   This in practice isn't a safe assumption. People do legitimately 
   discuss closed bugs, including requesting and providing 
   information. 
   Closed does not always imply no further discussion is needed or 
   desired.
  
  I would assert the opposite to be true.  That is to say a state of 
  closed by
  definition implies that a bug no longer needs discussion or 
  consideration.  In
  the converse, a bug that is still receiving updates in the form of 
  comments,
  likely should not be in the state closed.
 
 Dictating use of BZ is usually a futile effort, in Fedora. We have a 
 policy on it which is in practice rarely observed by anyone. What 
 should or should not be the cause is pretty much moot: what *is* the 
 case is that it makes sense to some of our BZ users to not treat 
 CLOSED in the way you advocate. BZ is, fundamentally, a tool, and 
 tools usually get used in the way that makes sense to the user.

Ok, I agree that dictating use is typically futile, everyone uses bugzilla in a
slightly different way, like it or not.  However, in this particular case we
have a tool (some bot that scans bugzilla sending us emails about them), that
handles interpretation of that data in way thats different from what many of us
humans interpret it (that is to say, it ignores the closed state when we
consider it to mean a bugzilla no longer needs review/commentary).  Humans I can
understand having different views, but the tools should provide the humans with
what we need here.  In this case I think that means one of the following:

1) Require that the bot ignore bugs that are closed (assuming a majority
consensus agrees, which I understand isn't likely to happen)

2) Require that the bot be configurable by individuals to optionally ignore (1)

3) Update bugzilla to automatically reopen closed bugs that receive a new
comment or status change (not a fan of this)

4) Some other solution I've not thought of yet

Just accepting that the tools send us email for bz's we're not interested in
doesn't seem like a reasonable solution here.

Neil

 -- 
 Adam Williamson
 Fedora QA Community Monkey
 IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
 http://www.happyassassin.net
 
 -- 
 devel mailing list
 devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Your Outstanding Requests on closed bugs

[Neil Horman]

On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 10:34:47AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
 Dne 30.3.2015 v 22:17 Neil Horman napsal(a):
  On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 11:27:17AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
  On Mon, 2015-03-30 at 09:55 -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
  On Mon, 30 Mar 2015, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
 
  On 03/30/2015 08:39 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:
  There are currently no flags set at all.
  Check the flags on the attachment itself (your second link).
  Ohh. there is shows up. How odd. Thanks. Now at least I know how
  to get rid of it, although I think it should clear out all requests
  for closed bugs.
  This in practice isn't a safe assumption. People do legitimately 
  discuss closed bugs, including requesting and providing information. 
  Closed does not always imply no further discussion is needed or 
  desired.
  I would assert the opposite to be true.  That is to say a state of closed 
  by
  definition implies that a bug no longer needs discussion or consideration.  
  In
  the converse, a bug that is still receiving updates in the form of comments,
  likely should not be in the state closed.
 
 Is Thank you comment allowed after the bug is closed?
 
Sure I don't see why not. This in my mind is more about the flags.

Neil

 
 Vít
 
 
 
  Neil
 
  -- 
  Adam Williamson
  Fedora QA Community Monkey
  IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
  http://www.happyassassin.net
 
  -- 
  devel mailing list
  devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
  Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
 
 -- 
 devel mailing list
 devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Your Outstanding Requests on closed bugs

[Petr Šabata]

On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 09:25:12AM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
 
 Hi,
 
 So I get a regular reminder for Your Outstanding Requests
 
 However, a bunch of these are on closed bugs. It seems stuck somehow in
 thinking it needs something from me. For example:
 
   Bug 815617: PATCH: properly deal with crypt() returning NULL (1043 days old)
 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815617
 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=585827action=edit
 
 This bug is already closed. And has no flags set. In the past someone
 set the review flag, which i think is why this is showing up for me. But
 I cannot get rid of it.
 
 I have a few more of these in the review category. How can I get rid of
 these?
 
 Paul

msekleta has asked you, specifically, to review the patch.
Perhaps setting the patch review flag to `+' would help.

P


pgpW_3w5fB5Js.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Your Outstanding Requests on closed bugs

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 30.3.2015 v 15:39 Paul Wouters napsal(a):
 On Mon, 30 Mar 2015, Petr Šabata wrote:

   Bug 815617: PATCH: properly deal with crypt() returning NULL (1043
 days old)
 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815617
 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=585827action=edit

 This bug is already closed. And has no flags set. In the past someone
 set the review flag, which i think is why this is showing up for me.
 But
 I cannot get rid of it.

 I have a few more of these in the review category. How can I get rid of
 these?

 Paul

 msekleta has asked you, specifically, to review the patch.
 Perhaps setting the patch review flag to `+' would help.

 Yes, on  2012-05-21 the review flag was set to me.
 On 2013-07-04, Tomas Hozza set the review flag to +
 I closed the bug on 2013-07-08.

 There are currently no flags set at all.

 Paul

I can see:


msekleta: review?pwout...@redhat.com


So if thozza + is enough, you should probably clear this flag.


Vít
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Your Outstanding Requests on closed bugs

[Petr Šabata]

On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 09:39:31AM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
 On Mon, 30 Mar 2015, Petr Šabata wrote:
 
   Bug 815617: PATCH: properly deal with crypt() returning NULL (1043 days 
  old)
 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815617
 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=585827action=edit
 
 This bug is already closed. And has no flags set. In the past someone
 set the review flag, which i think is why this is showing up for me. But
 I cannot get rid of it.
 
 I have a few more of these in the review category. How can I get rid of
 these?
 
 Paul
 
 msekleta has asked you, specifically, to review the patch.
 Perhaps setting the patch review flag to `+' would help.
 
 Yes, on  2012-05-21 the review flag was set to me.
 On 2013-07-04, Tomas Hozza set the review flag to +
 I closed the bug on 2013-07-08.
 
 There are currently no flags set at all.
 
 Paul

As I understand it you were asked for input on the patch which
you haven't provided yet.  The review(pwouters) flag is still
set to `?'.  thozza's review+ didn't change that.

P


pgpi246x9QPpu.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Your Outstanding Requests on closed bugs

[Paul Wouters]

On Mon, 30 Mar 2015, Michael Cronenworth wrote:


On 03/30/2015 08:39 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:


There are currently no flags set at all.


Check the flags on the attachment itself (your second link).


Ohh. there is shows up. How odd. Thanks. Now at least I know how
to get rid of it, although I think it should clear out all requests
for closed bugs.

Paul
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Your Outstanding Requests on closed bugs

[Paul Wouters]

On Mon, 30 Mar 2015, Petr Šabata wrote:


  Bug 815617: PATCH: properly deal with crypt() returning NULL (1043 days old)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815617
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=585827action=edit

This bug is already closed. And has no flags set. In the past someone
set the review flag, which i think is why this is showing up for me. But
I cannot get rid of it.

I have a few more of these in the review category. How can I get rid of
these?

Paul


msekleta has asked you, specifically, to review the patch.
Perhaps setting the patch review flag to `+' would help.


Yes, on  2012-05-21 the review flag was set to me.
On 2013-07-04, Tomas Hozza set the review flag to +
I closed the bug on 2013-07-08.

There are currently no flags set at all.

Paul
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Your Outstanding Requests on closed bugs

[Neil Horman]

On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 03:48:23PM +0200, Petr Šabata wrote:
 On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 09:39:31AM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
  On Mon, 30 Mar 2015, Petr Šabata wrote:
  
Bug 815617: PATCH: properly deal with crypt() returning NULL (1043 days 
   old)
  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815617
  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=585827action=edit
  
  This bug is already closed. And has no flags set. In the past someone
  set the review flag, which i think is why this is showing up for me. But
  I cannot get rid of it.
  
  I have a few more of these in the review category. How can I get rid of
  these?
  
  Paul
  
  msekleta has asked you, specifically, to review the patch.
  Perhaps setting the patch review flag to `+' would help.
  
  Yes, on  2012-05-21 the review flag was set to me.
  On 2013-07-04, Tomas Hozza set the review flag to +
  I closed the bug on 2013-07-08.
  
  There are currently no flags set at all.
  
  Paul
 
 As I understand it you were asked for input on the patch which
 you haven't provided yet.  The review(pwouters) flag is still
 set to `?'.  thozza's review+ didn't change that.
 
 P

Shouldn't the bug being closed superseed the flags though?  Whats the point of
reviewing something thats already been resolved?

I ask because I get these on occasion too, and don't really want to waste time
with busywork setting flags on closed bugs.
Neil



 -- 
 devel mailing list
 devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Your Outstanding Requests on closed bugs

[Michael Cronenworth]

On 03/30/2015 08:39 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:


There are currently no flags set at all.


Check the flags on the attachment itself (your second link).
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Your Outstanding Requests on closed bugs

[Fernando Nasser]

On 2015-03-30 9:55 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:

On Mon, 30 Mar 2015, Michael Cronenworth wrote:


On 03/30/2015 08:39 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:


There are currently no flags set at all.


Check the flags on the attachment itself (your second link).


Ohh. there is shows up. How odd. Thanks. Now at least I know how
to get rid of it, although I think it should clear out all requests
for closed bugs.

+1


Paul


--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Your Outstanding Requests on closed bugs

[Adam Williamson]

On Mon, 2015-03-30 at 09:55 -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
 On Mon, 30 Mar 2015, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
 
  On 03/30/2015 08:39 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:
   
   There are currently no flags set at all.
  
  Check the flags on the attachment itself (your second link).
 
 Ohh. there is shows up. How odd. Thanks. Now at least I know how
 to get rid of it, although I think it should clear out all requests
 for closed bugs.

This in practice isn't a safe assumption. People do legitimately 
discuss closed bugs, including requesting and providing information. 
Closed does not always imply no further discussion is needed or 
desired.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Your Outstanding Requests on closed bugs

[Neil Horman]

On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 11:27:17AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
 On Mon, 2015-03-30 at 09:55 -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
  On Mon, 30 Mar 2015, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
  
   On 03/30/2015 08:39 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:

There are currently no flags set at all.
   
   Check the flags on the attachment itself (your second link).
  
  Ohh. there is shows up. How odd. Thanks. Now at least I know how
  to get rid of it, although I think it should clear out all requests
  for closed bugs.
 
 This in practice isn't a safe assumption. People do legitimately 
 discuss closed bugs, including requesting and providing information. 
 Closed does not always imply no further discussion is needed or 
 desired.

I would assert the opposite to be true.  That is to say a state of closed by
definition implies that a bug no longer needs discussion or consideration.  In
the converse, a bug that is still receiving updates in the form of comments,
likely should not be in the state closed.

Neil

 -- 
 Adam Williamson
 Fedora QA Community Monkey
 IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
 http://www.happyassassin.net
 
 -- 
 devel mailing list
 devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Your Outstanding Requests on closed bugs

[Adam Williamson]

On Mon, 2015-03-30 at 16:17 -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
 On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 11:27:17AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
  On Mon, 2015-03-30 at 09:55 -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
   On Mon, 30 Mar 2015, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
   
On 03/30/2015 08:39 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:
 
 There are currently no flags set at all.

Check the flags on the attachment itself (your second link).
   
   Ohh. there is shows up. How odd. Thanks. Now at least I know how
   to get rid of it, although I think it should clear out all 
   requests
   for closed bugs.
  
  This in practice isn't a safe assumption. People do legitimately 
  discuss closed bugs, including requesting and providing 
  information. 
  Closed does not always imply no further discussion is needed or 
  desired.
 
 I would assert the opposite to be true.  That is to say a state of 
 closed by
 definition implies that a bug no longer needs discussion or 
 consideration.  In
 the converse, a bug that is still receiving updates in the form of 
 comments,
 likely should not be in the state closed.

Dictating use of BZ is usually a futile effort, in Fedora. We have a 
policy on it which is in practice rarely observed by anyone. What 
should or should not be the cause is pretty much moot: what *is* the 
case is that it makes sense to some of our BZ users to not treat 
CLOSED in the way you advocate. BZ is, fundamentally, a tool, and 
tools usually get used in the way that makes sense to the user.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Your Outstanding Requests on closed bugs

[Josh Boyer]

On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Adam Williamson
adamw...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
 On Mon, 2015-03-30 at 16:17 -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
 On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 11:27:17AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
  On Mon, 2015-03-30 at 09:55 -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
   On Mon, 30 Mar 2015, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
  
On 03/30/2015 08:39 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:

 There are currently no flags set at all.
   
Check the flags on the attachment itself (your second link).
  
   Ohh. there is shows up. How odd. Thanks. Now at least I know how
   to get rid of it, although I think it should clear out all
   requests
   for closed bugs.
 
  This in practice isn't a safe assumption. People do legitimately
  discuss closed bugs, including requesting and providing
  information.
  Closed does not always imply no further discussion is needed or
  desired.

 I would assert the opposite to be true.  That is to say a state of
 closed by
 definition implies that a bug no longer needs discussion or
 consideration.  In
 the converse, a bug that is still receiving updates in the form of
 comments,
 likely should not be in the state closed.

 Dictating use of BZ is usually a futile effort, in Fedora. We have a
 policy on it which is in practice rarely observed by anyone. What
 should or should not be the cause is pretty much moot: what *is* the
 case is that it makes sense to some of our BZ users to not treat
 CLOSED in the way you advocate. BZ is, fundamentally, a tool, and
 tools usually get used in the way that makes sense to the user.

Ah, so true.  Except user is just as ambiguous as bug state.  The
component owner is just as much a user as the reporter.  It might make
sense to one user to not discuss bugs in CLOSED where to another user
it does.  Having the metadata around the bug editable by anyone is
really kind of a bad design.  So much confusion.

TLDR; bugzilla is terrible (but it's the best thing we have).  The
only data that actually matters is that which is contained in the
comments section, and even that is pretty suspect most days.

josh
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Your Outstanding Requests on closed bugs

[Adam Williamson]

On Mon, 2015-03-30 at 16:48 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
 Dictating use of BZ is usually a futile effort, in Fedora. We have 
  a
  policy on it which is in practice rarely observed by anyone. What
  should or should not be the cause is pretty much moot: what *is* 
  the
  case is that it makes sense to some of our BZ users to not treat
  CLOSED in the way you advocate. BZ is, fundamentally, a tool, and
  tools usually get used in the way that makes sense to the user.
 
 Ah, so true.  Except user is just as ambiguous as bug state.  The
 component owner is just as much a user as the reporter.

That is the definition I was working with, yeah. I tend to see the 
people who own the bugs as the main users of Bugzilla, not the people 
who report them.

   It might make
 sense to one user to not discuss bugs in CLOSED where to another user
 it does.

Indeed, this is sort of the point I was trying to make; that it's not 
necessarily safe to make universal assumptions like 'if the bug's 
closed, no-one will want notifications about requested actions'.

   Having the metadata around the bug editable by anyone is
 really kind of a bad design.  So much confusion.

It's not actually editable by anyone, in fact there's rather a complex 
permissions system somewhat hidden behind the scenes. If you're a 
packager you don't much notice it because you mostly have permission 
to do most things (though not quite *everything*, see e.g. review 
flags) on any bug (you have 'editbugs' permissions). People who aren't 
packagers (or QA team members, or a couple of other ways you can get 
'editbugs') don't have that, and can only make changes (besides adding 
comments and attachments) to bugs they submitted (or bugs that are 
assigned to them, but just about anyone who can own bugs has 
'editbugs' anyhow).

 TLDR; bugzilla is terrible (but it's the best thing we have).  The
 only data that actually matters is that which is contained in the
 comments section, and even that is pretty suspect most days.

Sure. Basically what I'm saying is, if you're scripting interactions 
with Bugzilla, you need to be aware of the fact that there is no 
single universal workflow, different 'users' (however you define that) 
use it differently and your tool/script should account for that.

When all's said and done, maybe the thing that makes most sense for 
this 'notify of requested actions' *is* 'don't send any notifications 
for closed bugs', but even if it is, that's a 'least worst option' 
decision, not a 'this is obviously correct' decision.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct