Re: [opensuse-project] bugzilla resolution "OBSOLETE"
On 2012/05/16 16:09 (GMT) Jim Henderson composed:
On Wed, 16 May 2012 14:11:26 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
In GNOME Bugzilla, we do have a OBSOLETE resolution. I think that would help in such cases.
I like this idea in concept.
I don't...
I think the use of an OBSOLETE resolution is something that would be useful, but we have to be careful in actually using it - obviously there are some fixes (security in particular) where backporting a fix is generally considered a good idea. So we need to be extremely clear that the reason it's flagged obsolete is because (a) it's been resolved in a later release, and (b) a decision has been made (and that decision should at least be explained in the comments, IMHO) to not backport because of the effort/impact/whatever.
Instead of OBSOLETE, do like mozilla.org -> EXPIRED or INCOMPLETE, neither of which judge what has been done, and leave for consideration possible propriety to reopen with updated information. Don't forget too that one justification for INVALID can be obsolescence. Looking briefly through bugzilla.mozilla.org re the Bugzilla software product, the word obsolete seems to have a special meaning reserved for use with attachments. If it were up to me, "OBSOLETE" would not be added. -- "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 Wed, 16 May 2012 12:41:04 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
I like this idea in concept.
I don't...
[...]
Instead of OBSOLETE, do like mozilla.org -> EXPIRED or INCOMPLETE, neither of which judge what has been done, and leave for consideration possible propriety to reopen with updated information.
Don't forget too that one justification for INVALID can be obsolescence.
Looking briefly through bugzilla.mozilla.org re the Bugzilla software product, the word obsolete seems to have a special meaning reserved for use with attachments.
If it were up to me, "OBSOLETE" would not be added.
It actually sounds to me as if you are in favor of the idea conceptually, but the specifics of the name are open. The idea being that we want to identify bugs that are possibly no longer relevant in current releases. Would that be a fair statement? That's what I mean when I say I like the idea "in concept" - and I think we're essentially aligned, but we can debate the specific word in use once we've got agreement that there's a need for a status that conceptually identifies that possible lack of relevance to a current release. I don't want to get bogged down at this stage in specific word choices, let's stay focused on the concepts at this point, and once we are mostly pulling in the same direction, then we can get into specific implementation details. Of course, this also assumes that getting an additional status in bugzilla is going to be doable - we may have to step back and look at using an existing status rather than creating a new one - another reason not to get into too much detail until we have an answer as to what we can do in the implementation. I do have a question in to find out what flexibility there is in the current implementation. Jim -- Jim Henderson Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
On Wed, 2012-05-16 at 17:38 +0000, Jim Henderson wrote:
That's what I mean when I say I like the idea "in concept" - and I think we're essentially aligned, but we can debate the specific word in use once we've got agreement that there's a need for a status that conceptually identifies that possible lack of relevance to a current release.
Out of curiosity, is there some sort of standards out there or a group that sets up standards for bugzilla wordings? It would probably be more useful to choose words that are common across all bug-reporting systems. Bryen -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
On 2012-05-16 12:47:33 (-0500), Bryen M Yunashko
On Wed, 2012-05-16 at 17:38 +0000, Jim Henderson wrote:
That's what I mean when I say I like the idea "in concept" - and I think we're essentially aligned, but we can debate the specific word in use once we've got agreement that there's a need for a status that conceptually identifies that possible lack of relevance to a current release.
Out of curiosity, is there some sort of standards out there or a group that sets up standards for bugzilla wordings? It would probably be more useful to choose words that are common across all bug-reporting systems.
No. There are certainly de facto standards as most bug tracking systems share many status names. And there are a lot of other bug tracking systems, luckily ^^ IMHO we should just put a little thought into the status names to not sound rude when it shouldn't (WONTFIX is the perfect example of something that sounds really rude ("go eff yourself", kinda), at least to those who aren't used to bugzilla and the processes, or understanding how the bugs are triaged and worked on, which, afaics, is not all that transparent. But as Jim wrote, let's not get stuck on details right now. cheers -- -o) Pascal Bleser /\\ http://opensuse.org -- we haz green _\_v http://fosdem.org -- we haz conf
On Wed, 2012-05-16 at 19:58 +0200, Pascal Bleser wrote:
No. There are certainly de facto standards as most bug tracking systems share many status names. And there are a lot of other bug tracking systems, luckily ^^
IMHO we should just put a little thought into the status names to not sound rude when it shouldn't (WONTFIX is the perfect example of something that sounds really rude ("go eff yourself", kinda), at least to those who aren't used to bugzilla and the processes, or understanding how the bugs are triaged and worked on, which, afaics, is not all that transparent.
Agreed. Although I don't think its merely the word itself that always comes out rude. Its the comments. Seeing WONTFIX naturally makes me curious to find the reasoning behind it and when I scroll down to the comments, that's usually where the real "rudeness" comes into play. :-)
But as Jim wrote, let's not get stuck on details right now.
Agreed. That's why I was hoping there might be some formal reference we could look at instead of bogging ourselves down in minutiae of wording. But since there isn't, my intention is moot. :-) Bryen
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
On 2012/05/16 17:38 (GMT) Jim Henderson composed:
On Wed, 16 May 2012 12:41:04 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
I like this idea in concept.
I don't...
[...]
Instead of OBSOLETE, do like mozilla.org -> EXPIRED or INCOMPLETE, neither of which judge what has been done, and leave for consideration possible propriety to reopen with updated information.
Don't forget too that one justification for INVALID can be obsolescence.
Looking briefly through bugzilla.mozilla.org re the Bugzilla software product, the word obsolete seems to have a special meaning reserved for use with attachments.
If it were up to me, "OBSOLETE" would not be added.
It actually sounds to me as if you are in favor of the idea conceptually, but the specifics of the name are open. The idea being that we want to identify bugs that are possibly no longer relevant in current releases.
Would that be a fair statement?
I'm not entirely convinced INVALID isn't adequate for purging bugs against unsupported releases.
That's what I mean when I say I like the idea "in concept" - and I think we're essentially aligned, but we can debate the specific word in use once we've got agreement that there's a need for a status that conceptually identifies that possible lack of relevance to a current release.
Were I convinced, I don't believe OBSOLETE would be the best choice of addition. Mozilla's installation went many years before it was found appropriate to add EXPIRED and INCOMPLETE. Maybe that it eventually did should have convinced me. I'm bothered more by SUSE having been disgorged from Novell that it doesn't have a separate bug tracker to keep SLEx & openSUSE users from more easily getting overwhelmed trying to use it. cf. https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=753203 -- "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
Felix Miata wrote:
On 2012/05/16 17:38 (GMT) Jim Henderson composed:
On Wed, 16 May 2012 12:41:04 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
I like this idea in concept.
I don't...
[...]
Instead of OBSOLETE, do like mozilla.org -> EXPIRED or INCOMPLETE, neither of which judge what has been done, and leave for consideration possible propriety to reopen with updated information.
Don't forget too that one justification for INVALID can be obsolescence.
Looking briefly through bugzilla.mozilla.org re the Bugzilla software product, the word obsolete seems to have a special meaning reserved for use with attachments.
If it were up to me, "OBSOLETE" would not be added.
It actually sounds to me as if you are in favor of the idea conceptually, but the specifics of the name are open. The idea being that we want to identify bugs that are possibly no longer relevant in current releases.
Would that be a fair statement?
I'm not entirely convinced INVALID isn't adequate for purging bugs against unsupported releases.
INVALID is a smack in the face for the reporter. OBSOLETE is not much better - imho, we have to be careful about the wording even if the outcome is the same. Let's try to be kind and encouraging without heaping too much works on ourselves :-) -- Per Jessen, Zürich (5.6°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
On Wed, 16 May 2012 14:10:21 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
It actually sounds to me as if you are in favor of the idea conceptually, but the specifics of the name are open. The idea being that we want to identify bugs that are possibly no longer relevant in current releases.
Would that be a fair statement?
I'm not entirely convinced INVALID isn't adequate for purging bugs against unsupported releases.
Right, but putting the specific word aside, the idea is what I'm aiming at getting some consensus around. That there should be some way of identifying that a bug is not relevant any more because it's either been addressed or the system has changed as to make it not necessary to address. We can quibble over words all day and not get anywhere. So the concept is the important thing to get some consensus around.
Were I convinced, I don't believe OBSOLETE would be the best choice of addition. Mozilla's installation went many years before it was found appropriate to add EXPIRED and INCOMPLETE. Maybe that it eventually did should have convinced me.
Again, let's not focus so much on the word (that'll slow down momentum and we can debate the word once we've decided we're going down a productive and useful path). :)
I'm bothered more by SUSE having been disgorged from Novell that it doesn't have a separate bug tracker to keep SLEx & openSUSE users from more easily getting overwhelmed trying to use it. cf. https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=753203
That's really a separate issue and a much larger one to tackle. While it might be necessary/desirable to look at splitting the SUSE BU's bugs off from the others in the Novell bugzilla, if we start redesigning the entire system we'll end up not making any progress. I think we do have some more immediate and pressing issues to work out before we take on something as major as splitting the SUSE/openSUSE bugs out of the bug tracker they're currently in. We need to maintain focus on not letting the scope get out of control (scope creep will keep us from doing anything and nothing will change). Jim -- Jim Henderson Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
Jim Henderson wrote:
On Wed, 16 May 2012 14:10:21 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
It actually sounds to me as if you are in favor of the idea conceptually, but the specifics of the name are open. The idea being that we want to identify bugs that are possibly no longer relevant in current releases.
Would that be a fair statement?
I'm not entirely convinced INVALID isn't adequate for purging bugs against unsupported releases.
Right, but putting the specific word aside, the idea is what I'm aiming at getting some consensus around. That there should be some way of identifying that a bug is not relevant any more because it's either been addressed or the system has changed as to make it not necessary to address.
We can quibble over words all day and not get anywhere. So the concept is the important thing to get some consensus around.
A valid/actual bug that has been addressed (with or without update) is RESOLVED. A bug reported in a system that has since been superceded or in which the bug is unlikely to be fixed (resources, age, whatever) is NEEDINFO with a suggestion that the user a) upgrade or b) wait to see if an upgrade will fix it. Possibly we could use UNSUPPORTED, but that is a dangerous word too. I absolutely abhor being told "just upgrade" when realities make it impossible, but I appreciate the realities on the other side of the fence too.
I'm bothered more by SUSE having been disgorged from Novell that it doesn't have a separate bug tracker to keep SLEx & openSUSE users from more easily getting overwhelmed trying to use it. cf. https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=753203
"You are not authorized to access bug #753203." ??
That's really a separate issue and a much larger one to tackle. While it might be necessary/desirable to look at splitting the SUSE BU's bugs off from the others in the Novell bugzilla, if we start redesigning the entire system we'll end up not making any progress.
I honestly do not see a reason for having two separate copies of the same infrastructure. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (5.2°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
On Wed, 16 May 2012 21:29:57 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
We can quibble over words all day and not get anywhere. So the concept is the important thing to get some consensus around.
A valid/actual bug that has been addressed (with or without update) is RESOLVED.
A bug reported in a system that has since been superceded or in which the bug is unlikely to be fixed (resources, age, whatever) is NEEDINFO with a suggestion that the user a) upgrade or b) wait to see if an upgrade will fix it. Possibly we could use UNSUPPORTED, but that is a dangerous word too.
Yes, but as I said, the specific word choice is something that I think we should shelve for now and we need to get aligned around the concept first. If we're not aligned around the concept, then the word choice discussion makes no sense at all.
I absolutely abhor being told "just upgrade" when realities make it impossible, but I appreciate the realities on the other side of the fence too.
Yep, to both.
I'm bothered more by SUSE having been disgorged from Novell that it doesn't have a separate bug tracker to keep SLEx & openSUSE users from more easily getting overwhelmed trying to use it. cf. https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=753203
"You are not authorized to access bug #753203." ??
So it's a bug that Felix submitted with a number of UI requests for Bugzilla that could make it easier for openSUSE users to use. The bug itself is outside the scope of the bug management process, though. Felix, if you want to discuss this on the list, please start a separate thread. :)
That's really a separate issue and a much larger one to tackle. While it might be necessary/desirable to look at splitting the SUSE BU's bugs off from the others in the Novell bugzilla, if we start redesigning the entire system we'll end up not making any progress.
I honestly do not see a reason for having two separate copies of the same infrastructure.
From a technical standpoint, there really isn't any other than perhaps to increase the flexibility for us to make modifications to the UI.
But from an identity standpoint, now that SUSE is a peer to Novell inside Attachmate (rather than a subsidiary of Novell), there may be benefit to doing this. But a wholescale redesign of bugzilla for openSUSE is out of scope for this discussion. I think we need to focus on some short-term wins in terms of refining the bug process within what we have, and if we want to look at a larger-scale redesign, then we do that once we've triaged the existing processes so they're more effective. Jim -- Jim Henderson Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
Jim Henderson wrote:
On Wed, 16 May 2012 21:29:57 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
We can quibble over words all day and not get anywhere. So the concept is the important thing to get some consensus around.
A valid/actual bug that has been addressed (with or without update) is RESOLVED.
A bug reported in a system that has since been superceded or in which the bug is unlikely to be fixed (resources, age, whatever) is NEEDINFO with a suggestion that the user a) upgrade or b) wait to see if an upgrade will fix it. Possibly we could use UNSUPPORTED, but that is a dangerous word too.
Yes, but as I said, the specific word choice is something that I think we should shelve for now and we need to get aligned around the concept first. If we're not aligned around the concept, then the word choice discussion makes no sense at all.
Agree.
That's really a separate issue and a much larger one to tackle. While it might be necessary/desirable to look at splitting the SUSE BU's bugs off from the others in the Novell bugzilla, if we start redesigning the entire system we'll end up not making any progress.
I honestly do not see a reason for having two separate copies of the same infrastructure.
From a technical standpoint, there really isn't any other than perhaps to increase the flexibility for us to make modifications to the UI.
True - I'm probably too old or too experienced to really appreciate the issues here. Professionally I grew up with Dial-IBM and helped implement IBM Info Management in the 1980s ....
But from an identity standpoint, now that SUSE is a peer to Novell inside Attachmate (rather than a subsidiary of Novell), there may be benefit to doing this.
But a wholescale redesign of bugzilla for openSUSE is out of scope for this discussion.
Way out of scope - and I question the potential benefits. It would no doubt be the Right Thing (R) to do, but only given the right resources too.
I think we need to focus on some short-term wins in terms of refining the bug process within what we have,
Yep. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (5.1°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
On 2012/05/16 19:44 (GMT) Jim Henderson composed:
On Wed, 16 May 2012 21:29:57 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
I'm bothered more by SUSE having been disgorged from Novell that it doesn't have a separate bug tracker to keep SLEx& openSUSE users from more easily getting overwhelmed trying to use it. cf. https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=753203
"You are not authorized to access bug #753203." ??
This is an example of what I meant in another thread earlier today: http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-project/2012-05/msg00196.html It doesn't allow me to unrestrict access as Carlos suggested I could.
So it's a bug that Felix submitted with a number of UI requests for Bugzilla that could make it easier for openSUSE users to use.
The bug itself is outside the scope of the bug management process, though. Felix, if you want to discuss this on the list, please start a separate thread. :)
I honestly do not see a reason for having two separate copies of the same infrastructure.
From a technical standpoint, there really isn't any other than perhaps to increase the flexibility for us to make modifications to the UI.
Bugs with restricted access such as the above warn about discussion of sensitive information without defining what information is sensitive, with the result that essentially the whole bug should be considered sensitive and not open to outside discussion. This is antithetical to the FOSS openSUSE, and an important reason why I believe SUSE needs a separate bug tracker from that which Novell uses for things other than SUSE. IIRC, RedHat/Fedora has no corresponding limitation. -- "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 Wed, 16 May 2012 17:22:12 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
From a technical standpoint, there really isn't any other than perhaps to increase the flexibility for us to make modifications to the UI.
Bugs with restricted access such as the above warn about discussion of sensitive information without defining what information is sensitive, with the result that essentially the whole bug should be considered sensitive and not open to outside discussion. This is antithetical to the FOSS openSUSE, and an important reason why I believe SUSE needs a separate bug tracker from that which Novell uses for things other than SUSE. IIRC, RedHat/Fedora has no corresponding limitation.
RedHat/Fedora have different goals than SUSE itself does, though. I agree that principally bugs related to openSUSE and the openSUSE infrastructure should be open to the public. The question of access need not lead to a large scale "it must be separated" move, because again, that's not an undertaking to be taken lightly, going to take considerable effort and resources to migrate the existing data (and I don't think we want to lose that history), and really beyond the scope of streamlining the bug reporting/resolution process. That's not to say visibility isn't important. But when there is a visibility issue, we should report it and find out why it's been restricted - and get the restriction lifted unless there is a compelling reason for it to not be lifted (and I'd say those should be fairly few and far between). Jim -- Jim Henderson Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
On 2012/05/16 19:44 (GMT) Jim Henderson composed:
On Wed, 16 May 2012 21:29:57 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
I'm bothered more by SUSE having been disgorged from Novell that it doesn't have a separate bug tracker to keep SLEx& openSUSE users from more easily getting overwhelmed trying to use it. cf. https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=753203
"You are not authorized to access bug #753203." ??
This is an example of what I meant in another thread earlier today: http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-project/2012-05/msg00196.html
It doesn't allow me to unrestrict access as Carlos suggested I could.
So it's a bug that Felix submitted with a number of UI requests for Bugzilla that could make it easier for openSUSE users to use.
The bug itself is outside the scope of the bug management process, though. Felix, if you want to discuss this on the list, please start a separate thread. :)
I honestly do not see a reason for having two separate copies of the same infrastructure.
From a technical standpoint, there really isn't any other than perhaps to increase the flexibility for us to make modifications to the UI.
Bugs with restricted access such as the above warn about discussion of sensitive information without defining what information is sensitive, with the result that essentially the whole bug should be considered sensitive and not open to outside discussion. This is antithetical to the FOSS openSUSE, and an important reason why I believe SUSE needs a separate bug tracker from that which Novell uses for things other than SUSE. IIRC, RedHat/Fedora has no corresponding limitation. -- "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/ I heard they were planning on splitting the bugzilla up for the different companies. Now could be a good time to poke SUSE about that...
On Wed, 2012-05-16 at 17:22 -0400, Felix Miata wrote: then the resources issue may be mitigated. We can consider other systems as well. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
* Per Jessen
Jim Henderson wrote:
On Wed, 16 May 2012 14:10:21 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
I'm bothered more by SUSE having been disgorged from Novell that it doesn't have a separate bug tracker to keep SLEx & openSUSE users from more easily getting overwhelmed trying to use it. cf. https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=753203
"You are not authorized to access bug #753203." ??
I could earlier, but cannot now ??? -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA HOG # US1244711 http://wahoo.no-ip.org Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://linuxcounter.net -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
participants (7)
-
Bryen M Yunashko -
Felix Miata -
Jim Henderson -
Pascal Bleser -
Patrick Shanahan -
Per Jessen -
Roger Luedecke