Hi, On Mon, 6 Oct 2008, Marcus Meissner wrote:

On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 08:31:25PM +0100, Richard (MQ) wrote:

...

(I know - this keeps on happening - because it has *still* not been addressed by Novell...)

Bug 431880 (11.1 Beta 2 NFS problems) has been closed as duplicate of 431542 but this latter is marked as private. Does it really need to be? If so please can we have a status report?

Bug 431542 is a SUSE LInux Enterprise Server 11 bugreport, these are usually not open to the public. And never was.

True, but not more than a poor fact.

...

Please, Novell developers - when marking a bug as private consider us ordinary folks that are trying to help the community...

Separately - anyone have a work around? It seems that executing (as root) "rpc.statd -F" gives an "unable to register" error, by which point I'm out of my depth...

This is really limiting my exploration of the beta, which looks pretty good otherwise.

There wasn't anymore information in there either. I moved the bug to openSUSE 11.1 however, you should be able to see it now.

Thanks. Good done. This should happen "automatically" whenever an open bug gets detected as a duplicate of a closed bug - or at least the closed should be marked duplicate. Viele Grüße Eberhard Mönkeberg (emoenke@gwdg.de, em@kki.org) -- Eberhard Mönkeberg Arbeitsgruppe IT-Infrastruktur E-Mail: emoenke@gwdg.de Tel.: +49 (0)551 201-1551 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gesellschaft für wissenschaftliche Datenverarbeitung mbH Göttingen (GWDG) Am Fassberg 11, 37077 Göttingen URL: http://www.gwdg.de E-Mail: gwdg@gwdg.de Tel.: +49 (0)551 201-1510 Fax: +49 (0)551 201-2150 Geschäftsführer: Prof. Dr. Bernhard Neumair Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Prof. Dr. Christian Griesinger Sitz der Gesellschaft: Göttingen Registergericht: Göttingen Handelsregister-Nr. B 598 -------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi, On Mon, 6 Oct 2008, Marcus Meissner wrote:

On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 10:14:49PM +0200, Eberhard Moenkeberg wrote:

...

On Mon, 6 Oct 2008, Marcus Meissner wrote:

...

On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 08:31:25PM +0100, Richard (MQ) wrote:

...

...

...

(I know - this keeps on happening - because it has *still* not been addressed by Novell...)

Bug 431880 (11.1 Beta 2 NFS problems) has been closed as duplicate of 431542 but this latter is marked as private. Does it really need to be? If so please can we have a status report?

Bug 431542 is a SUSE LInux Enterprise Server 11 bugreport, these are usually not open to the public. And never was.

True, but not more than a poor fact.

...

...

Please, Novell developers - when marking a bug as private consider us ordinary folks that are trying to help the community...

Separately - anyone have a work around? It seems that executing (as root) "rpc.statd -F" gives an "unable to register" error, by which point I'm out of my depth...

This is really limiting my exploration of the beta, which looks pretty good otherwise.

There wasn't anymore information in there either. I moved the bug to openSUSE 11.1 however, you should be able to see it now.

Thanks. Good done. This should happen "automatically" whenever an open bug gets detected as a duplicate of a closed bug - or at least the closed should be marked duplicate.

You pretty much overestimate our abilities to get features into Bugzilla ;)

Sorry, but such things can happen more often since we develop openSUSE 11.1 and SLE 11 in parallel.

Please just speak up in the duplicated bugreport (or here).

I am sure the duplicate detection does not work without any "human interaction". So there is the chance to do it right. Viele Grüße Eberhard Mönkeberg (emoenke@gwdg.de, em@kki.org) -- Eberhard Mönkeberg Arbeitsgruppe IT-Infrastruktur E-Mail: emoenke@gwdg.de Tel.: +49 (0)551 201-1551 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gesellschaft für wissenschaftliche Datenverarbeitung mbH Göttingen (GWDG) Am Fassberg 11, 37077 Göttingen URL: http://www.gwdg.de E-Mail: gwdg@gwdg.de Tel.: +49 (0)551 201-1510 Fax: +49 (0)551 201-2150 Geschäftsführer: Prof. Dr. Bernhard Neumair Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Prof. Dr. Christian Griesinger Sitz der Gesellschaft: Göttingen Registergericht: Göttingen Handelsregister-Nr. B 598 -------------------------------------------------------------------------

We need a compatible "solution" for this, not singing a big cry. Sorry, yes: solution is needed, but no: without crying you will reach nothing. Hope: aj, cthiel, maybe coolo. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 10:20:29PM +0200, Hans-Peter Holler wrote:

Sorry I were too late: Marcus, you said: Sorry, but such things can happen more often since we develop openSUSE 11.1 and SLE 11 in parallel.

And this is what I wanted to say:

I _do_ this with posting on top:

"You are not authorized to access bug #431542."

I am an authorized member to the public bugzilla and I know that especially SLE-bugs meeting openSUSE-bugs are marked as private/internal. So, if the person assigned to the internal bug is not aware of the public dependency, that could be be explained twice: - That person is too dumb to read all dependend bug reports (no no no) - Novell's/SUSE's SLE-policy says: yes to all coming in from the outside, but don't let anything come out

And I know this reads angry: I _am_ angry with this!

The bugzilla is used for openSUSE, SUSE Linux Enterprise, and lots of Novell products. It is only open for the public for openSUSE. There is no internal bugzilla, there is just this one, bugzilla.novell.com. But yes, our packagers should be more careful not to cut you off. Ciao, Marcus -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On 2008/10/06 22:48 (GMT+0200) Marcus Meissner composed:

our packagers should be more careful not to cut you off.

Bugzilla is probably smart enough to be trained to either not accept a dupe of a public bug to a private bug, or to deprivatize a non-security-related private bug that catches a public bug as a dupe. The situation shouldn't require a bug's triager to "know" to do that with the case, but only respond to some kind of alert to the problem. -- "Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to become angry." James 1:19 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday, 2008-10-07 at 07:58 +0800, Magnus Boman wrote:

...

But yes, our packagers should be more careful not to cut you off.

The issue, for developers, is that they have an existing bug report where issue XYZ was reported. He then gets assigned another one where XYZ happend, which is a duplicate. So what does he do? Obviously, marks the second XYZ bug as a dupe of the first one. Unless something in bugzilla can then warn the developer that he's marking a public bug duplicate of an "internal" bug, these things will happen. I mean, we can't expect the developer to keep track of all his bugs and from what product the came from, especially since they most often have more than enough bug reports to keep them busy fixing issues. Adding an extra overhead of trying to manually administrate this is, in my opinion, wrong.

I don't know how bugzilla works internally, but I assume it has a database, and that you can add triggers or code to be executed when certain actions happens, like "if status=close and reason=dupplicate, then run check". Such a code could check for this situation, I suppose. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkjql7AACgkQtTMYHG2NR9We3gCfbw15OR/75C32p3IoYH0tMweD PmgAoJAzSEOZBRUBHr2uTGCZJVPgRqji =MkiX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

Moin, On Oct 06, 08 22:20:29 +0200, Hans-Peter Holler wrote:

Sorry I were too late: Marcus, you said: Sorry, but such things can happen more often since we develop openSUSE 11.1 and SLE 11 in parallel.

And this is what I wanted to say:

I _do_ this with posting on top:

"You are not authorized to access bug #431542."

I am an authorized member to the public bugzilla and I know that especially SLE-bugs meeting openSUSE-bugs are marked as private/internal. So, if the person assigned to the internal bug is not aware of the public dependency, that could be be explained twice: - That person is too dumb to read all dependend bug reports (no no no) - Novell's/SUSE's SLE-policy says: yes to all coming in from the outside, but don't let anything come out

Thanks for understanding that even here at SUSE humans are working. I agree with you that some warning should be issued to avoid this situation to the one making the duplicate. I've opened a bug for that, 432788 (I'm not sure if that _is_ public available, as it's against the bugzilla product and I do not know all permissions by heart).

And I know this reads angry: I _am_ angry with this!

Well, I hope you do not assume that we block you out on purpose. It's simply human failure. And a missing feature in bugzilla, sigh. Stefan -- Stefan Behlert, SUSE LINUX - a Novell business, -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On Mon, 2008-10-06 at 18:44 -0500, Rajko M. wrote:

On Monday 06 October 2008 03:57:24 pm Stefan Behlert wrote:

...

Moin, ... Thanks for understanding that even here at SUSE humans are working. I agree with you that some warning should be issued to avoid this situation to the one making the duplicate. I've opened a bug for that, 432788 (I'm not sure if that _is_ public available, as it's against the bugzilla product and I do not know all permissions by heart).

The soultion is very simple as Carlos mentioned.

We reopen bug that we can access, with comment that original is private, and you guys will know what happened and mark private bug as duplicate, or just work on both bugs so the customer's problem doesn't land in public.

Yes, agreed. Cheers, Magnus -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

Hello, on Montag, 6. Oktober 2008, Stefan Behlert wrote:

Thanks for understanding that even here at SUSE humans are working.

;-)

I agree with you that some warning should be issued to avoid this situation to the one making the duplicate.

The last time I had a chance to check this was in the "good old days" around 10.1 beta, when the old susebeta group (for SL 9.x and older) still existed in bugzilla [1]. At this time, I marked a bug (which was a 9.1 bug, but entered as a 10.0 bug since 9.x was/is non-public) as a duplicate of a 9.1 bug. To make the story short: bugzilla already shows a warning in this case. Screenshot: www.cboltz.de/tmp/bugzilla-duplicate-permission-warning.png [2] Unfortunately the text sounds more like a warning that the duplicate reporter will be able to access the original bug (and even offers an option NOT to CC the duplicate reporter there) instead of sounding like "the original bug is not public, openSUSE betatesters could become angry". While 10.1 development, there was a discussion how this page could be improved: Basically, the idea was to add a loud siren sound (so that everybody in the office is aware what you are doing) and two options: a) make the bug public b) make the bug public ;-) I would happily help to implement this warning page...

I've opened a bug for that, 432788 (I'm not sure if that _is_ public available, as it's against the bugzilla product and I do not know all permissions by heart).

It is non-public (what a surprise ;-) and I would be happy if you can CC me there (search for "cboltz" in user lookup, I'm using a different address in bugzilla than in this mailinglist) Apropos bugzilla user lookup: This is a never-ending story. It was available for some time, then the bugzilla team decided to close it so that spammers can't download all mail adresses (but they could and still can search for all bugs where the assignee address contains "@" - results in an quite impressive buglist *g*). I then proposed to limit the lookup result to 10 users which makes it useless for spammers. Some months (and several REOPEN clicks) later this was done. This was part 1, Bugs: 197429, 198516, 198516 (all non-public [3]) This state lasted about half a year, then user lookup was disabled again for people only in the editbugs group (read: all the openSUSE community). The new argument is that it is possible to find people which were not involved in any public bug with user lookup :-/ Bug 374374 (non-public [3]) In the meantime, I'm tired in discussing with the bugzilla team :-( I'm back to a solution that works quite well: Just search all bugs where reporter, commenter, assignee, CC list, whatever contain <the name I'm looking for>. I'm quite sure this method causes some load on the bugzilla server (because the resultset can become quite long) - but if the bugzilla team doesn't care about the needs of the openSUSE community, I don't care on the server load. I'm sorry to say it that hard, but that's reality (and the only available würgaround to do a user lookup). Of course I would prefer a more friendly and cooperative way between the community (including me) and the bugzilla team. Finding a way to re-enable user lookup would be a good start ;-) In case someone wonders why I need the user lookup: In many cases I know who maintains a package (hint: changelog) and want to save the screening team some work by directly assigning the bug to the right person. Unfortunately many people use a different mail address in the changelog, so I have to search for them. The same problem applies when entering Action Items [4] - the responsible person is clear, so it would be pointless to annoy the screening team with it. Regards, Christian Boltz [1] dropping this group without any warning and therefore forbidding seasoned beta-testers to access old bugs they were not involved (as Reporter/CC member) wasn't the best idea IMHO - but well, in the meantime these bugs are mostly of historical interest ;-) [2] both bug numbers in the screenshot are 9.1 bugs, so they are not public [3] If someone wants to be CC'ed in the mentioned bugs to be able to access them, just send me a mail. [4] I hope to find more time for the upcoming meetings again ;-) -- Schlagen. Verklagen. Z.B. bei der c't verpfeifen, auf daß es fortan die Spatzen von den Dächern pfeifen, was für Pfeifen das bei $Firma sind. *scnr* [David Haller in suse-linux] -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On Wednesday 08 October 2008, Christian Boltz wrote:

...

Thanks for understanding that even here at SUSE humans are working.

;-)

...

I agree with you that some warning should be issued to avoid this situation to the one making the duplicate. [...]

Christian, thanks for your email. The issue has been raised internally again, already independently, so hopefully we'll see a better solution in the future. In the meantime, if there is any bugreport where you think you should have access but don't, feel free to mail me privately and ask about it. Greetings, Dirk -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org