On Mon, 2006-04-03 at 14:46 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote: > On Monday 03 April 2006 14:25, Craig White wrote: > >On Mon, 2006-04-03 at 14:08 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote: > >> On Monday 03 April 2006 13:43, Craig White wrote: > >> >On Mon, 2006-04-03 at 13:27 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote: > >> >> On Monday 03 April 2006 12:18, Sjoerd Mullender wrote: > >> > >> [...] > >> > >> >> >I maintain, it's all there. > >> >> > >> >> It may be on *that* screen, but thats not the screen one would > >> >> intuitively use for that. Those options should be fully > >> >> available at the top of the drive prep menu, and I don't have a > >> >> quarter to call somebody who *thinks* they are simplifying it for > >> >> Joe & Jane Sixpack and tell him/her thay they are an idiot for > >> >> doing it preemptively, long before one is even thinking of how > >> >> the target drive is to be prepared. Just like the organization > >> >> line in my headers, absolutely none. > >> > > >> >---- > >> >there is a mechanism for providing feedback...bugzilla. I've read > >> > it here many times...it's not a bug if it's not in bugzilla. > >> > >> Yes, and the dubious geneology of bugzilla has been discussed here, > >> at length, many times in several, often unprintable languages. It > >> maybe is improving from my last meeting with it, but simple it > >> isn't. Most (including me) would rather not have a brainless script > >> second, third, or forth guessing what it is we're trying to say. > > > >---- > >seems to me that since Red Hat and Fedora absolutely rely upon > > bugzilla for bug reports and repairs, enhancement requests and all > > other errata for their packaging and have done so for quite some > > time. > > > >Recognize that if you don't provide feedback, your opinions languish > >here and go nowhere and are not considered and not relevant to the > >decision makers (i.e. the packagers, in this case - > > fedora-developers). It is your choice whether you interact with > > bugzilla or not. > > > >When I want my opinions to actually count (be considered), I put them > > in bugzilla attached to the appropriate package. When I want to get > > on a soap box and shout into the abyss...this is a suitable place. > > > >As to your insinuation of the 'dubious genealogy of bugzilla', it has > >served the development system for RHL, RHEL and now Fedora for a great > >many years and is integral to the development. While less than > > perfect, it is a system that is used in a vast array of software > > projects but you could actually put in a bugzilla entry on bugzilla > > itself I would guess...that is if you identified something that > > needed fixing. > > > >Craig > > A correction here, Craig. > > It has served to insulate the developers from the feedback obtainable by > listening to the real world because they don't have the time to listen > to all the senseless babble here. And I agree that much of it is > exactly that. > > In that insulating effort it is absolutely unsurpassed in its > effectiveness. Nothing else I've encounterd has succeeded in > deflecting bug bitches from getting to the real people who might listen > and act as well as bugzilla has over the years. Navigating that to > actually file a report has been improved some over the years, but I > dare say it still turns away 95% of the people who go there. 5 years > ago I daresay the reject rate was 99.9%, so I'll admit there has been > some improvements. OTOH if you make it too easy, then it turns into > this list, and thats equally non-productive. ---- what do you cite as the source of these statistics? Does the above citation count entries that are marked 'notabug' as part of the 95% turn away? FWIW - I did a report within bugzilla and found no entries tied to "gene.heskett" whatsoever - which I assume means that you have not submitted nor cc'd yourself to a single report in the bugzilla history. Are you relating first hand experiences here (because I don't see any evidence of that) or are you referring to your general impression of bugzilla? Craig
