On pá 3. dubna 2009, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On Thursday, 2009-04-02 at 21:10 +0200, Henne Vogelsang wrote:
And here you have perfectly described the misunderstanding that happens constantly on a public bug reporting tool.
User: I want to do A and then B happens. I try to understand why B happens and it turns out that it shouldn't. So i tell the developer that and he will solve my problem.
Developer: I write A and then release it. A has 63 problems because there is no bugfree software. Now a user comes with the 64th problem and does not even provide a backtrace. Why did he not send a patch?
As you can see those are two valid views on the same situation. The solution to this is that both try to get closer to the others side.
There is a third situation: the user supplies the required info, there are precise logs, kernel OOps, etc, but the bug is not solved and remains open for years (literally). I can tell you that it is quite frustrating.
Yes, indeed, this is a third situation: Packager - didn't write the code himself and does not know about potential problems. - can fix bugs that he is able to reproduce - debugging bugs that he is not able to reproduce is very time consuming - it basically means guessing potential problems and navigating the user through testing them. The logs, etc. are often not sufficient. - there are tasks with higher priority IMHO bugs in this situation should be moved upstream and the original reporter is probably in a better position to do so because he can at least reproduce the problem. Vladimir -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org