[opensuse-project] request: Change the way bugs are 'closed' -- require package info and verification by OP
When filing a bug, assuming that it's valid, the acceptable, desired outcome is a verified & deployable fix. In our distro terms, that's a package, made available in a repo -- arguably one of the repos that the system reporting the bug has enabled, and that the OP has verified -- by using/deploying the updated package -- works (within an acceptable response time frame ...). @ Opensuse bugzilla, it's frequently true that bugs are 'closed' when a developer has made changes to code -- without, necessarily, evidence that an OBS request has been made, the package is in a test-repo, &/or that it works for the OP. For example, here are two bugs I've filed where that's occurred (it's an example, not a criticism of the work done/contributed in the bugs ): https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=779087#c28 Bug 779087 - after 12.1->12.2 upgrade, system with ROOT on LVM-on-RAID fails to boot; loops VG not found/partial mode https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782835#c15 Bug 782835 - Xen HVM Guest fails (errors) to launch on Opensuse 12.2 + Xen 4.2 + 'xl' toolstack Reopening is certainly an option. Reopening is not always well received. The noise created by the open/close/reopen 'dance', and hunting for bug-specific information outside of the bug, simply wastes everybody's time, and, imo, discourages participation/contribution. I'd like to propose (at least for some discussion) that bug process/workflow be changed to require the inclusion/posting of target package info, and an OP-verification step. - ar -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
On 2012-10-08 09:20 (GMT-0700) ar16@imapmail.org composed:
Reopening is certainly an option.
agree
Reopening is not always well received.
agree
The noise created by the open/close/reopen 'dance', and hunting for bug-specific information outside of the bug, simply wastes everybody's time, and, imo, discourages participation/contribution.
AGREE
I'd like to propose (at least for some discussion) that bug process/workflow be changed to require the inclusion/posting of target package info, and an OP-verification step.
I'd rather simply that bugs not be marked fixed until packages including their fixes appear on all relevant repos. -- "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
On 08.10.2012 19:14, Felix Miata wrote:
On 2012-10-08 09:20 (GMT-0700) ar16@imapmail.org composed:
Reopening is certainly an option.
agree
Reopening is not always well received.
agree
The noise created by the open/close/reopen 'dance', and hunting for bug-specific information outside of the bug, simply wastes everybody's time, and, imo, discourages participation/contribution.
AGREE
I'd like to propose (at least for some discussion) that bug process/workflow be changed to require the inclusion/posting of target package info, and an OP-verification step.
I'd rather simply that bugs not be marked fixed until packages including their fixes appear on all relevant repos.
And who is going to volunteer to do the bugzilla closing? You can't seriously expect the developer to fix bugs *and* watch the repos all the time. Bugzilla has a clear notion: developer sets from ASSIGNED to RESOLVED, reporter sets it to VERIFIED or REOPENED. Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
Am Dienstag, 9. Oktober 2012, 11:50:20 schrieb Stephan Kulow:
And who is going to volunteer to do the bugzilla closing? You can't seriously expect the developer to fix bugs *and* watch the repos all the time.
Bugzilla has a clear notion: developer sets from ASSIGNED to RESOLVED, reporter sets it to VERIFIED or REOPENED.
And mentioning the bug number in the changes on obs will automatically send feedback to the bug report. Sven -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
On 2012-10-09 11:50 (GMT+0200) Stephan Kulow composed:
Felix Miata wrote:
I'd rather simply that bugs not be marked fixed until packages including their fixes appear on all relevant repos.
And who is going to volunteer to do the bugzilla closing? You can't seriously expect the developer to fix bugs *and* watch the repos all the time.
"All the time": of course not. But who's in a position to understand the system well enough to gauge when a fix might actually be available to verify? -> Average patch writers far more than average reporters. And, there well could be and probably often are many interested in any given fix who would independently have to watch the repos, compared to just one patch writer. I see this as yet another inducement for would-be reporters to not bother reporting, maybe a small one, but nevertheless.
Bugzilla has a clear notion: developer sets from ASSIGNED to RESOLVED, reporter sets it to VERIFIED or REOPENED.
Reporters are not always in a position to verify. I know I've submitted bugs based upon hardware or other conditions only temporarily available. Developers are not compelled to mark resolved the instant they submit a patch. They *could* set arbitrary 24 hour, 48 hour, 72 hour or some other tickling deferral based upon their own understandings of how long the system has been taking to get from patch submission to patched is on mirrors before marking a bug fixed. The dev might note in the bug when marking it the existing mirrored package version, leaving interested parties only to watch for an incremented version to hit mirrors. I wonder if the Bugzilla software, possibly via upgrade or extension, has a way to do that automatically? If it doesn't, maybe an RFE is worth investigating by someone who understands the build and distribute process. -- "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 06:56:03AM -0400, Felix Miata wrote: [ 8< ]
The dev might note in the bug when marking it the existing mirrored package version, leaving interested parties only to watch for an incremented version to hit mirrors. I wonder if the Bugzilla software, possibly via upgrade or extension, has a way to do that automatically? If it doesn't, maybe an RFE is worth investigating by someone who understands the build and distribute process.
But developers are in the position? No. We don't even have enough time to develop stuff. Instead we waste time with useless discussions. On multiple levels. That sucks our time much to much. SUSE as a company is in the position? We have to decide how we like our main sponsor to invests time, manpower, and money. The integration work Bernhard did between the Open Build Service (OBS) and bugzilla is one big step forward. The next step would be an issue tracker which is able to pull the available package bugowner and assign a fresh report to this person. If that's impossible with the Novell tool we need an own one for openSUSE. Maintainers are welcome. From the Samba bugzilla I know that this is painful and time consuming job. I'm quite happy someone else from Novell handles this work. For the report state all we need is to document the workflow as Coolo did in his reply. This needs to be merged to the wiki if it's not yet there. Also here contribution is possible, easy, and welcome. Also this is task requires no development skills. Cheers, Lars -- Lars Müller [ˈlaː(r)z ˈmʏlɐ] Samba Team + SUSE Labs SUSE Linux, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
On Tue, 9 Oct 2012 13:33:28 +0200, Lars Müller
For the report state all we need is to document the workflow as Coolo did in his reply. This needs to be merged to the wiki if it's not yet there. Also here contribution is possible, easy, and welcome. Also this is task requires no development skills.
And a feature like in the ntpd bugzilla would also help. If a bug there is closed, an automatic message is generated that points the reporter to the available package that fixes the bug and that asks the the reporter to verify or reopen. While I think that pointing the reporter to the package that fixes the bug may be impossible, automatically asking the reporter to verify/reopen should be rather easy to implement. Philipp -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 04:31:48 +0200
Philipp Thomas
While I think that pointing the reporter to the package that fixes the bug may be impossible, automatically asking the reporter to verify/reopen should be rather easy to implement.
As Sven mentioned, if changes file has bug report number mentioned, then OBS will post to the bug report in bugzilla as soon as package is ready. That will trigger bugzilla mail system to send mail to all subscribed to the bug report. So reporter and all interested will know that package is ready. -- Regards, Rajko. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 2012-10-09 11:50, Stephan Kulow wrote:
Bugzilla has a clear notion: developer sets from ASSIGNED to RESOLVED, reporter sets it to VERIFIED or REOPENED.
I was not aware of the verified status and that the reporter has to set it. :-? - -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 12.1 x86_64 "Asparagus" at Telcontar) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlB0KHwACgkQIvFNjefEBxrvfwCgrmAp4xJUweWcSSx/dnM0PW8X zhsAniGkm0R/dFqdXQ3JEcDQoEVUrw5o =Si9k -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
On 09.10.2012 15:37, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2012-10-09 11:50, Stephan Kulow wrote:
Bugzilla has a clear notion: developer sets from ASSIGNED to RESOLVED, reporter sets it to VERIFIED or REOPENED.
I was not aware of the verified status and that the reporter has to set it. :-?
Very few are aware of it or use it. Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012, at 06:55 AM, Stephan Kulow wrote:
Bugzilla has a clear notion: developer sets from ASSIGNED to RESOLVED, reporter sets it to VERIFIED or REOPENED.
I was not aware of the verified status and that the reporter has to set it. :-?
Very few are aware of it or use it.
Then perhaps that could be addressed at the project/developer level -- mandated either by policy or automation. Currently, it's not done so consistently, if at all -- My current examples of that "clear notion" of a workflow NOT working as ideally intended include: https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783847 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782835 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=779087 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 08:07:08AM -0700, ar16@imapmail.org wrote:
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012, at 06:55 AM, Stephan Kulow wrote:
Bugzilla has a clear notion: developer sets from ASSIGNED to RESOLVED, reporter sets it to VERIFIED or REOPENED.
I was not aware of the verified status and that the reporter has to set it. :-?
Very few are aware of it or use it.
Then perhaps that could be addressed at the project/developer level -- mandated either by policy or automation.
Currently, it's not done so consistently, if at all -- My current examples of that "clear notion" of a workflow NOT working as ideally intended include:
What do you think is the issue here? It is still debugging.
Hmm. What do you think the issue is here? That no 12.2 update was created yet?
Only part missing was that I did not add the bnc# to the mdadm update, sorry. Ciao, Marcus -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012, at 11:39 PM, Marcus Meissner wrote:
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 08:07:08AM -0700, ar16@imapmail.org wrote:
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012, at 06:55 AM, Stephan Kulow wrote:
Bugzilla has a clear notion: developer sets from ASSIGNED to RESOLVED, reporter sets it to VERIFIED or REOPENED.
I was not aware of the verified status and that the reporter has to set it. :-?
Very few are aware of it or use it.
Then perhaps that could be addressed at the project/developer level -- mandated either by policy or automation.
Currently, it's not done so consistently, if at all -- My current examples of that "clear notion" of a workflow NOT working as ideally intended include:
What do you think is the issue here? It is still debugging.
Hmm. What do you think the issue is here? That no 12.2 update was created yet?
Only part missing was that I did not add the bnc# to the mdadm update, sorry.
I simply provided all three examples in response to coolo's specific comments re: bugzilla's workflow. In all three cases the bugs were NOT set to "RESOLVED" by the dev, but rather to CLOSED/FIXED prior to, as OP, my being able to legitimately test, and VERIFY. So I REOPENED. I *specifically* called out in my OP that they're examples of workflow, NOT that I have an "issue" or criticism that was done on the bugs. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 11:47:15PM -0700, ar16@imapmail.org wrote:
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012, at 11:39 PM, Marcus Meissner wrote:
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 08:07:08AM -0700, ar16@imapmail.org wrote:
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012, at 06:55 AM, Stephan Kulow wrote:
Bugzilla has a clear notion: developer sets from ASSIGNED to RESOLVED, reporter sets it to VERIFIED or REOPENED.
I was not aware of the verified status and that the reporter has to set it. :-?
Very few are aware of it or use it.
Then perhaps that could be addressed at the project/developer level -- mandated either by policy or automation.
Currently, it's not done so consistently, if at all -- My current examples of that "clear notion" of a workflow NOT working as ideally intended include:
What do you think is the issue here? It is still debugging.
Hmm. What do you think the issue is here? That no 12.2 update was created yet?
Only part missing was that I did not add the bnc# to the mdadm update, sorry.
I simply provided all three examples in response to coolo's specific comments re: bugzilla's workflow.
In all three cases the bugs were NOT set to "RESOLVED" by the dev, but rather to CLOSED/FIXED prior to, as OP, my being able to legitimately test, and VERIFY. So I REOPENED.
I *specifically* called out in my OP that they're examples of workflow, NOT that I have an "issue" or criticism that was done on the bugs.
This is openSUSE, a community project, we should be happy that people work for it and we should be very careful on imposing unnecessary buerocratic / strict rules. Ciao, Marcus -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012, at 12:05 AM, Marcus Meissner wrote:
This is openSUSE, a community project, we should be happy that people work for it and we should be very careful on imposing unnecessary buerocratic / strict rules.
Suggesting that we consider improving efficiency of inefficient processes and reducing wasted time for all concerned is somehow "imposing unnecessary buerocratic / strict rules"? You and I have very different ideas, then, of what's "unncessary" and "bureaucratic". If you'd rather things don't change because "we should just be happy" -- that's your prerogative. Mine, otoh, is to suggest/discuss what I consider to be improvements. That includes not wasting people's time. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
On 10.10.2012 09:13, ar16@imapmail.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012, at 12:05 AM, Marcus Meissner wrote:
This is openSUSE, a community project, we should be happy that people work for it and we should be very careful on imposing unnecessary buerocratic / strict rules.
Suggesting that we consider improving efficiency of inefficient processes and reducing wasted time for all concerned is somehow "imposing unnecessary buerocratic / strict rules"?
You and I have very different ideas, then, of what's "unncessary" and "bureaucratic". If you'd rather things don't change because "we should just be happy" -- that's your prerogative.
Mine, otoh, is to suggest/discuss what I consider to be improvements. That includes not wasting people's time.
The thing is: you imply rules for group A that makes their life more difficult in having to apply to more rules and at the same time you say it's fine for group B that group A does that. But where is the benefit for group A? Especially as you seem to be from B, you need to give some better arguments than "wasting people's time" - when you really mean "wasting group B's time". If you manage to convince everyone that the rules bring benefits to everyone, I'm sure we can apply them. Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
when you really mean "wasting group B's time".
No, I didn't. Now, I do ... I can manage my own participation & efficiency. Feel free to not change a thing. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
Hello, Am Dienstag, 9. Oktober 2012 schrieb ar16@imapmail.org:
In all three cases the bugs were NOT set to "RESOLVED" by the dev, but rather to CLOSED/FIXED prior to, as OP, my being able to legitimately test, and VERIFY. So I REOPENED.
Your example bugs show something that needs improvement: developers should set bugs to RESOLVED, but not to CLOSED. This is what most developers already do, and also what is documented on https://bugzilla.novell.com/page.cgi?id=fields.html#status To sum it up: RESOLVED: fix was commited and is waiting for QA (this means someone, for openSUSE typically the bugreporter or another affected person, should install the fixed package and test it) VERIFIED: someone (typically the bugreporter, but other people seeing the bug before can also do it) has tested the fix and verified that it works. CLOSED: The step after VERIFIED - not sure if we need it in openSUSE. Workflow: - developers should mark a bug as RESOLVED when it is fixed (or wontfix/whatever). - bugreporter (or another person affected by the bug) tests the fixed package and marks the bug as VERIFIED if it works (or REOPENED if something is still wrong). VERIFIED can also be used as a "I agree" note, for example is marked as duplicate. Can we agree on this? (If nobody objects, please add it to the wiki on http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Submitting_bug_reports ) Since only a few developers set a bug directly to CLOSED, the best way IMHO is to send them a short, friendly mail and asking them to use RESOLVED instead. As you probably know, most bugs stay in RESOLVED state forever because nobody sets them to VERIFIED. This might be caused by a) bugreporters not reporting back after testing (who cares (or has time) for paperwork if it works? ;-) or b) nobody testing the fix. I don't see a real problem with bugs staying in RESOLVED state - if a bug still exists, I'm sure the bug _will_ be REOPENED. It's of couse a good idea to mark bugs as VERIFIED [1] - but I don't think we can or should enforce it. Regards, Christian Boltz [1] it might be helpful to provide a default search My Bugs (non-verified) for all bugzilla users that shows bugs reported by this user in state RESOLVED - but given how "responsive" the bugzilla team is, I'm afraid we won't get it in bugzilla.novell.com :-( -- Früher mußte man den Müll heimlich im Wald verbuddeln; Heute gibt es EBAY :-) [Axel Lindlau in suse-linux] -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
On 2012-10-10 15:45 (GMT+0200) Christian Boltz composed:
Your example bugs show something that needs improvement: developers should set bugs to RESOLVED, but not to CLOSED. ... Workflow: - developers should mark a bug as RESOLVED when it is fixed (or wontfix/whatever). - bugreporter (or another person affected by the bug) tests the fixed package and marks the bug as VERIFIED if it works (or REOPENED if something is still wrong). VERIFIED can also be used as a "I agree" note, for example is marked as duplicate.
Can we agree on this?
Absolutely agree! That's how it works (well) for the much older bugzilla.mozilla.org tracker. I really don't see any point in having a CLOSED status except maybe for noisy WONTFIX bugs that should die, and be restricted to being applied by a select group of project drivers.
(If nobody objects, please add it to the wiki on http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Submitting_bug_reports ) -- "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)
Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
participants (10)
-
ar16＠imapmail.org -
Carlos E. R. -
Christian Boltz -
Felix Miata -
Lars Müller -
Marcus Meissner -
Philipp Thomas -
Rajko -
Stephan Kulow -
Sven Burmeister