https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40985
--- Comment #6 from Tim Landscheidt <[email protected]> 2012-10-16 19:29:41 UTC --- (In reply to comment #5) > The point I'm trying to make is I would prefer developers closes themselves > bug > with relevant comments if needed or allow the discussion about the bug to go > on > when needed. And that's something I disagree absolutely with. If some developer wants to manually close a bug or comment on it, he can do so. But why burden volunteer or paid developers with unnecessary, mechanical management tasks? There is a huge cost involved, but what is the benefit (besides your personal preference)? > I would also like to stress two of the newly appointed bug wrangler > objectives: > (1) Grow a community of volunteer bug responders who help transfer issue > reports from other communication channels to the bug tracker, and who share > bug > management responsibilities > (2) Clean up and organize the existing bug tracker backlog, identifying > duplicated and outdated bugs > This translates a willingness to assign such bug closure responsibility to > humans, instead to automated systems. I don't see any such requirement. These tasks refer to bug triage that requires human assessment, not to have someone waiting for someone else's message "Bug fixed" to click on the button "Bug fixed". > [...] > "Yesterday, there were 8 548 open bug reports in MediaWiki. Should we take > Wikipedia offline until they are all fixed?" doesn't constitute a logical > argument, as: > (1) the number of open bugs is quantitative, the way we close bug is > qualitative; > (2) the 8 548 bugs are in the immense majority bug not yet resolved or > analyzed, not bugs resolved with forgotten closure; > (3) there is no need to close Wikipedia to fix bugs (we use continuous > integration processes) (and by the way, not all open bugs are related to > components used on Wikimedia projects); > (4) you start with the hypothesis 8 548 open bugs is bad and this amount > should > be decreased, I beg to differ, this proves we've a living bug report > ecosystem, > with users finding bugs and asking new features. > Why do you use such catastrophic exaggeration in a constructive dialog to find > the better way to improve bugs handling? If all of this is true, why don't you want to apply the same continuous improvement process that we use on MediaWiki to its bug management and implement an initial auto-close on the commit of bug fixes even if there are cases where that will not be useful? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
