Re: move to rawhide update (Fedora QA breakage)

2009-04-08 Thread John Gilmore
   II. - What for me is an inhibitor is the bugzilla section tell us 
 how to reproduce the problem.  I have no desire whatsoever to try 

Mikus unfortunately plays a troll on the Internet.  He probably isn't
one in real life, but the way he uses the XO is extremely unusual, so
he views the XO in ways that appear to be 77 degrees away from the
usual viewpoint.  His bug reports require careful interpretation if
you want to avoid immediately discarding them as worthless.

  What good would it do for 
 me to enter a bugzilla report?  A dozen people would ask me for more 
 information, and for more try this and try that.  I have better 
 things to do with my time.

I'm sad to report that I tried to participate in a Fedora QA test
day last week for some particular hardware I have (low end Radeon
graphics).  I filed one clear bug report, and four days later got the
usual please send us lots of irrelevant info form letter.  I filed a
testy reply telling them they don't need it and please stop pretending
to close out bug reports by demanding that the user send some
irrelevant info.  See:

  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=493748

One of these irrelevant busybodies self-identifies as one of the
Fedora BugZappers with this link:

  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers

  We are a group of volunteers and Red Hat employees whose primary
  mission is to review and triage bug report submissions on
  bugzilla.redhat.com, acting as a bridge between users and developers
  to aid in fixing and closing bugs.

Now I see what's going on.  Clueless people are crashing around in the
bug database, helping developers by hassling users.  Then if you
don't answer the idiots, 30 days later they close out your bug report
as CLOSED:INSUFFICIENT_DATA.  Instead of a bridge, they seem to be
more of a barrier, though perhaps they do good work somewhere.  I
think these are the same people who also trashed the OLPC
suspend/resume is broken bug report, by running a script that
declared it an obsolete problem that only applied to F10, even though
the problem persists long after F10.  But as the BugZapper credo says,
No programming knowledge is necessary, and triagers don't necessarily
need to understand the bugs they are working on.

So I'll have to agree with Mikus's analysis of why not to bother
filing Red Hat bugzilla bugs.  Idiots will hassle you, and claim
that the bug doesn't exist after all, then close it.  (*)

John

(*): At Cygnus, we wrote a bug tracking system, PRMS.  We made very
sure that nobody except the original submitter could close out a bug
report.  The only thing developers or QA people could do was put the
bug into feedback state, asking the original submitter to confirm
that the bug really is fixed.  I insisted on this process flow because
of the numerous companies I'd reported bugs to, who regularly closed
out my bugs without fixing them -- over and over.  I'd search the bug
reports at Sun and find six people all reporting the same bug I'd
encountered -- and all six of them closed inappropriately by somebody
whose job it was to close bug reports (not to fix bugs).  Cygnus's
customers appreciated the attention, even though it was sometimes a
hassle for us to nudge them to close out the bugs we really HAD fixed.
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel


Re: move to rawhide update (Fedora QA breakage)

2009-04-08 Thread Peter Robinson
 Now I see what's going on.  Clueless people are crashing around in the
 bug database, helping developers by hassling users.  Then if you
 don't answer the idiots, 30 days later they close out your bug report
 as CLOSED:INSUFFICIENT_DATA.  Instead of a bridge, they seem to be
 more of a barrier, though perhaps they do good work somewhere.  I
 think these are the same people who also trashed the OLPC
 suspend/resume is broken bug report, by running a script that
 declared it an obsolete problem that only applied to F10, even though
 the problem persists long after F10.  But as the BugZapper credo says,
 No programming knowledge is necessary, and triagers don't necessarily
 need to understand the bugs they are working on.

I agree with you to a certain extent. I believe the reason for the
relable as F10 is primarily due to the fact that Fedora is
relatively fast moving. The idiots you refer to are in the case of the
this has been reported in rawhide during the F10 development process
so assigning it to F10 are in fact scripts so are complete idiots.
There's a good reason to assign it from rawhide to the specific
release that it was reported under, its because it moves very quickly.
X is an example of this. There's been massive changes in the last 3-4
fedora releases and for example errors related to input devices
reported in F-9 are completely irrelevant in F-10 because the entire X
input subsystem was replaced. So to be able to see that it was
reported in what became F-9 is important because its going to be
completely different issue in F-10. Just because it gets moved from a
rawhide designator to a F-10 one doesn't mean its closed, and if its
still relevant for rawhide, you can update it. I do so regularly.

As for the bugZappers. no comment :-)

Peter
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel