On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 2:01 PM, Alexander Dorofeyev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > James Hawkins wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Kai Blin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Hi folks, > >> > >> I seem to have done something wrong referring a user to a closed bug > report > >> that seemed to be related to the problem he was having. (See bug 11639 > for > >> more context) > >> > >> So in order to avoid me being the cause a user defiles the holy status > of a > >> closed bug, I'd like to have some clear rules on how to handle related > bug > >> reports. > >> > > > > It's actually a lot simpler than that. While we don't want users > > filing duplicate bug reports, a bug can't be a duplicate of another > > bug that is already fixed. The right thing to do would be to tell > > that user to file a new bug report, referring to the closed bug report > > if he really feels like it. Sure they very well maybe be related, but > > the fact remains that one bug is fixed, while another bug is not > > fixed. Thus, they're not the same bug. By the way, if you really > > want to help this situation, I don't recommend the sarcasm. > > > >> And you folks wonder why we don't have a healthy user community. > Sometimes I > >> feel like talking to a brick wall. > >> > > > > http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11639#c16 > > http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11639#c18 > > > > Those are links to my comments for the bug report in question. The > > user was told to file a new bug report. Once the user kept commenting > > in the closed bug report (and not filing a new bug report), I told him > > to stop posting in a closed bug. Since when is this not standard? > > > > I think bugzilla operators are a bit too trigger happy lately, in particular > with abandoning bugs. For example: > http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12437 > > "The tests aren't time consuming, but if you choose to not do the tests, > we'll > have to close this bug as abandoned." >
Can we all stop with the sensationalist comments? Seriously. If you'll actually read what I said, I made no threats, nor was I rude. I also didn't change the resolution of the bug, so where's the trigger-pulling you refer to? The only mistake I made, which was a mistake on the part of everyone triaging this bug, was that I didn't know the bug was freely reproducible. That's the worst I did, and that's not a big deal, and certainly not worth your reply. > And there's a link mentioned in comments to downloadable trial that can > (reportedly) be used to reproduce. Sure, the user should've filled the URL > field. But, it's pointless to expect users to 1) do everything right 2) > follow > their bugs indefinitely (sometimes for years). 3) always be willing to do > time > consuming and otherwise demanding operations like regression test. > On behalf of the regular bugzilla moderators (of which there are very few), I'll go over the policy we have in place to keep, or strive to attain, a manageable bugzilla database. There are only a few conditions that warrant abandoning a bug: a) the bug must not be freely reproducible b) the reporter has not responded to a request for more information in at least 3 months, or c) the reporter will not or can not provide the information requested, usually not doing the regression testing If you have a problem with any of these policies, bring it up in wine-devel, but don't single me out. We devote so much of our free time to keep our bugzilla manageable, and a big part of that is weeding out bugs which we can do nothing about (abandoned). > If a user submitted enough info to make it possible for developer to > reproduce > or otherwise make sense of a bug, he has already done a commendable job. IMHO > care should be taken not to "abandon" bugs without good reason, such as bug > description that makes no sense, absence of any useful logs and obscure app > for > which no download can be googled and user not responding for a long period > of time. > Besides the reproducible part of this last paragraph, you're describing an invalid bug, not abandoned. -- James Hawkins
