Who can close BZs?

[Karel Volný]

Hi,

well ... I don't want to say I don't appreciate any work to make Fedora better, but in this case, I think you just haven't done it properly

please take the following just as another point of view, a bit of teasing

Dne pátek, 6. prosince 2013 21:07:03 CEST, Chris Murphy  napsal(a):
> On Dec 6, 2013, at 10:31 AM, Clyde E. Kunkel 
> <clydekunkel7734 at verizon.net> wrote:
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1038885
>
> Closed the first time because it's not an F20 bug. As mentioned 
> in bug 864198 it's intended behavior.

the fact that some behaviour is intended doesn't mean that it is correct and that it should stay that way forever

in fact, this exact behaviour _should_ change in the future, so it is nice that someone created a bugzilla record to track the future change - the mere existence of bug 864198 doesn't make bug 1038885 superfluous, as bug 864198 is about grubby behaviour and bug 1038885 should have tracked the change in anaconda

"it's not a F20 bug" is not a reason to close, if F20 is not the target, instead of closing, you should have changed the target to rawhide (and added RFE, FutureFeature or whatever marking the anaconda team prefers)

after all, bug 1039124 is marked as such, so why this couldn't have been done for bug 1038885?

> Also closed because the summary ...

so, what prevented you from fixing the summary?

- still not a reason to close

> I'd always intended to create a clearly described and explicit 
> rawhide RFE tracking bug for the issue,

"intention" unfortunately does not count, so someone was faster than you to file the issue ... if you still preferred to do it your way, you could have said that explicitly instead of telling the reporter he's doing something incorrectly and you don't have the time to bother with his help

the reporter simply does not know what your preferred workflow/bug description and markings are, and reporting what does he experience _in his own words_ is not incorrect by definition, that's what bugzilla is for (among other things)

> and it was impossible to clean up and change your bug into that without
> requiring the reader to read 7 comments that have nothing to do with
> actually progressing the real problems.

with the subject corrected, I don't think that anyone would have to read *the description* to see what "the real problem" is

also note that I say "the description" instead "7 comments" as the comment number one is from you, you could have fixed the bug summary, version etc. at that time, ranting about seven useless comments now is unfair, a fallacy

and believe it or not, some people are interested in real-life usecases, so they find even the "incorrect" description written by the user valuable

> There are issues with grub2 and os-prober that also need to be 
> addressed for certain use cases.

I do not see any grub2 and os-prober bugs in the dependency chain ... would that "intention" change into action only after someone will file two more "incorrect" bugs?

K.

-- 
Karel Volný
QE BaseOs/Daemons Team
Red Hat Czech, Brno
tel. +420 532294274
(RH: +420 532294111 ext. 8262074)
xmpp kavol at jabber.cz
:: "Never attribute to malice what can
::  easily be explained by stupidity."