Moving away from reporting to RH bugzilla and adopting pure upstream reporting mantra.

Jonathan Kamens jik at
Tue Sep 24 19:17:05 UTC 2013

As Michael Schwendt has pointed out, NEW implies neither that the bug 
hasn't been looked at nor that there has been no activity on it.

Russ Herrold is also correct: if bugs are not being looked at, then 
that's not the fault of the bug-tracking system, it's the fault of the 
people who are supposed to be looking at the bugs.

Drawing conclusions from a single package is rigging the game, since 
what we're discussing is that some packages are maintained better than 

Looking at F18 is rigging the game, because a package maintainer may 
have (reasonably) stopped looking at F18 bugs when F19 came out if s/he 
knows that F19 has a new version which fixes significant bugs.

Having said all that, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that NEW 
bugs haven't been looked at or responded to, and try to answer the 
question of what percentage of Fedora bugs aren't being looked at or 
responded to in a reasonable amount of time. My methodology is to look 
at the total of all Fedora bugs filed between one and two months ago (to 
limit the scope of the problem -- otherwise you're just dealing with too 
many bugs) and then to look at how many bugs within that same time 
period are in state NEW.

There are 2,129 NEW Fedora bugs and 5,199 total Fedora bugs filed 
between 2013-07-24 and 2013-08-24. That's only 40% of the total number 
of bugs, which disproves assertion that the majority of bugs aren't 
being dealt with. If we go back a month earlier, from 2013-06-24 to 
2013-07-24, there are 1,715 NEW bugs out of 3,932 total bugs, i.e., 43%. 
Still not the majority. A month earlier than that, 1,407 out of 3,804 = 
36%. Still not the majority.

I entirely agree with you that it would be better if those percentages 
were lower. But driving those numbers is not the end goal. The end goal 
is to improve the quality of Fedora as much as we can with the resources 
we have, and I (and many others, clearly) don't believe that no longer 
tracking Fedora bugs in RHBZ will accomplish that.


On 09/24/2013 02:35 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 09/24/2013 03:48 PM, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 09:46:51AM +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>>> >
>>> >So from my point of view we wont be gathering reports from novices
>>> >end users in 10 years time.
>> This is a plain self-fulfilling prophecy.  If you will manage to kill
>> report gathering means then indeed you will have no reports; from novice
>> users in particular.
>> While bugzilla is far from perfect and it can be frustrating at times
>> a "solution" you are pushing does not even start to pass a laugh test.
> Really...
> Let's run a simple query against bugzilla for bugs in the status NEW  
> ( as in not looked at ) and find out the oldest report from our 
> reporters for the soon to be EOL released F18 which should have the 
> longest time maintainers could have responded bugs filed by reporters.
> The oldest bug was filed by Stef Walter <mailto:stefw at>on 
> 2012-08-15 against binutils with total of 7205 bugs found. ( You can 
> multiple that number by half an hour at least of reporters time )
> Now let's look at the gory details of EOL bugs closed wontfix running [2]
> 8031 bugs found.
> Do you honestly think this is a) healthy b) constructive for new 
> reporters ( which usually leave after waiting up to 13 months having 
> their bug fixed or in the case of the above over a year for somekind 
> of feedback from the maintainer )
> I would think the highest priority from a QA perspective is to both 
> report and actually get the highest chances of having the bugs fixed 
> as well as receiving some kind of feed back from the maintainer while 
> reporters are at it.
> 1. 
> 2. 
> ps.
> Here's an exercise for the reader find out how many got fixed in F17 ( 
> for the shocking truth )

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the test mailing list