Re: Bugzilla summary

[Malcolm Tredinnick <malcolm commsecure com au>]

On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 08:35:48PM -0500, Russell Steinthal wrote:
> On 21 Nov 2000 00:01:07 +0100, Martin Baulig wrote:
> 
> >> >         WORKSFORME
> >> >                 All attempts at reproducing this bug were futile,
> >> >                 reading the code produces no clues as to why this
> >> >                 behavior would occur. If more information appears
> >> >                 later, please re-assign the bug, for now, file
> >> >                 it.  (some people suggested adding a new
> >> >                 INCOMPLETE, but I think we can use WORKSFORME for
> >> >                 this).
> Personally, I think there are two distinct states here:
> 
> INCOMPLETE ---- I don't have enough information to determine if this 
>                 bug is real or not, but let's keep it around just in 
>                 case.
> 
> WORKSFORME ---- I have tried to reproduce this bug without success, 
>                 even under the (possibly complete) circumstances 
> 		provided by the reporter.
> 
> Or is that too fine a level of distinction?

I think it's too fine a level. A few hours ago, I started to write a
response that suggested something like this. However, when you think
about it, it's not really the case. Let's assume that users do not just
fabricate bugs from nothing. So the application really did crash for
some reason. If we can't replicate it, as bug fixers, then we just
haven't got exactly the same circumstances as the user (yet).

Of course, beyond some point we are likely to say "well, I can't repeat
this, even with all the extra information you gave me. It's probably an
unrelated factor, so I'll close it." However, this won't happen
(assuming concientious bug fixers) without a fair bit of work occurring
first.

To my mind, WORKSFORME looks like a brush off. INCOMPLETE sort of jars
in my mind, but it's probably the most accurate one word summary, since
it encompasses both "really just need more info" and "completely
irreproducible for me".

> >> One to throw in
> >> 
> >> 	VOLUNTEER
> >> 		We accept it needs fixing but nobody has the time to do this
> >> 		job. We'll take submissions.
> >> 
> >> (A handy one for hackers to search on when bored) - ok you actually covered
> >> this in keywords..
> >
> >Yeah, I think it's not so good to have this as a bug status - for
> >instance you may want to keep a bug ASSIGNED to you but still
> >appreciate some help with it.
> 
> A related question: what is the preferred status for bugs reported on 
> platforms which the maintainer doesn't have access to?  I'd like 
> some way to leave them in the system, possibly as unconfirmed, but 
> also ask for confirmation (and additional information) from those who 
> have access to that platform.  Would that be keyword: HELPWANTED?  Or 
> something else?

A post to somewhere like gnome-hackers or gnome-devel from time to time
saying "can anybody help with this?". The problem with a bug category
like HELPWANTED is that it requires keen people to search through the
database fro such tags. I suspect that may be less likely to happen that
a one off response to a "help wanted" message for something specific on
a mailing list.

Of course, I may be completely wrong, too (it's pretty much my default
installation state).

Malcolm

-- 
Malcolm Tredinnick            email: malcolm commsecure com au
CommSecure Pty Ltd