On Sun, Aug 26, 2007 at 04:50:17PM -0400, Todd Zullinger wrote: > Charles Curley wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 26, 2007 at 02:35:01PM -0400, Todd Zullinger wrote: > > I don't know the details of the reports Aaron was talking about. He > did say that there was a lengthy exchange asking for info, which leads > me to believe that the maintainer tried to get the needed info. > > But yes, I agree that bug reports should be acknowledged and closed > with some reason, even it's "can't reproduce" or something. Fair enough. > > > You and Rahul seem to want to make things as easy as possible for > > the maintainers. I think that's a fine idea. But it's a two way > > street: the maintainers can acknowledged reports, work with the > > reporters, and resolve the bugs. A "Won't fix" with an explanation > > of why is better than leaving it hanging. > > Of course. I hope I didn't give the impression that reports should be > ignored. What I do think it worth noting is the sheer number of > reports and the limit on hours per day. Most maintainers aren't paid > to work on Fedora packages, so it seems quite reasonable to expect > that a user wanting a bug fixed be patient and understanding if their > bug doesn't get the attention they would like. > > I only recently started to maintain a few packages so I don't have > piles of bug reports to deal with as some maintainers do. I have had such piles, although not with Fedora. My advice: learn how to triage them, and how to move them along. Do not get behind; it will kill you. It's also rude to the reporter. > I certainly intend to reply to every bug report that is filed on any > of my packages, I appreciate that; I hope the good intentions last. As you are a volunteer (so I take it), don't take on more than you can chew, and leave yourself some slack. That's advice I've been giving volunteers and paid employees for damn near half a century now, and its good advice. > but I know that other maintainers with heavier workloads may > not be able to do that. What can really help in those cases are > volunteers to do some triaging of bugs to weed out duplicates and ask > for more info from reports that lack enough detail to enable proper > debugging[1]. OK, I've worked as a paid professional on the receiving end of bug systems similar to bugzilla. Sorry, but from that experience I'm skeptical of the bug zappers. I think it is part of the maintainer's job to do that stuff. I'm glad to see it proposed and I hope it prospers. The work definitely needs to be done! Is there a document anywhere that details what a maintainer should expect from bugzilla and reporters, how to go about using the system, etc. For example, a document that gives circumstances under which one would mark a bug as "will not fix", and steps to take prior to doing so. An ops manual, if you will, for bugzilla? Yeah, I know: this is FOSS: Read the Source. > > Basically, since this is a mostly volunteer effort, I get a little > defensive when anyone has too many expectations from the volunteers. > (I'm not saying that you do, so please don't take that personally. :) Understandable, and not taken personally. > > [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers > > -- > Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Things in our country run in spite of government, not by aid of it. > -- Will Rogers > > -- > fedora-list mailing list > fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list -- Charles Curley /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign Looking for fine software \ / Respect for open standards and/or writing? X No HTML/RTF in email http://www.charlescurley.com / \ No M$ Word docs in email Key fingerprint = CE5C 6645 A45A 64E4 94C0 809C FFF6 4C48 4ECD DFDB
Attachment:
pgpj36JFllngW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
