Bugzilla and management thereof

[Charles Curley]

On Sun, Aug 26, 2007 at 05:36:10PM -0400, Todd Zullinger wrote:
> Charles Curley wrote:

> Fair enough.
> 
> I sincerely hope I didn't come across as shitting on you for not
> reporting it to bugzilla.

You didn't. Others in other fora have been less polite. I was reacting
to them and took it out on you. Sorry about that.


> > "Comrade Zullinger, you haven't written enough lines of free
> > software this week. Back to your terminal!"
> 
> Hehe.  I try to bail quickly from places that bark orders at me.

Good. We need more people who will do that.

> 
> > So if you don't mind, I will determine whether something is "that
> > much to ask" of me.
> 
> Nope, I don't mind at all (in fact, I'd prefer that you determine
> that).  I hope I didn't give the wrong impression in my replies.  The
> thing that spurred me to write is the part about expecting maintainers
> to be subscribed here.  That's similar to expecting all users to
> report all bugs to bugzilla (perhaps a little worse IMHO, since the
> signal to noise ratio here is much lower than it is in bugzilla :).

It didn't occur to me that someone who maintained one or more packages
for Fedora wouldn't also use it, and so wouldn't be on this
list. Really.

> 
> And since there are more users than maintainers here, the side of the
> maintainers is in more need of stating now and again.

Yup. Which side you are getting to learn.

> 
> > Thanks for the thought. No-one has to do anything on this list,
> > except maybe the paid employees whose duties encompass such things.
> 
> Indeed.  I'm curious about it now and if other tasks don't fill my
> time and distract me, I may well poke into the mantis package a bit.
> If it's really fubar'd, it should be fixed or removed.  It'd be far
> better to have you not find the package than to find it and waste an
> hour or more before just installing the tarball.
> 
> I know nothing about mantis though, so I wonder if it could be the
> sort of package like mailman, where there is a lot that needs to be
> done after installing the package before it will work?  If so, there
> should be a fedora specific readme somewhere that explains such steps.

There is a Fedora specific README which outlines a short process to go
through. I followed it, to no avail.

(Such documents should be mentioned in the description field of the
spec so installers know they exist, but that's another tirade!)

> 
> >> (In the case of the above bug, it's also possible that it was fixed in
> >> a newer gnome release and it just didn't get closed properly.
> > 
> > Nope, hasn't been fixed as far as I know. Sorry, I thought that was
> > implied when I described the bug as "outstanding" rather than "still
> > open".
> 
> I just didn't guess that you were being so specific with your wording
> (you damn writers ;).  If it's still an issue with new versions, then
> the report could be updated to note that it still applies to f7.
> Otherwise it may end up getting closed when someone comes along and
> auto-closes bugs from older releases*.  And changing the release
> version along with a comment something like "Ping! This is still a
> problem, any news?" may reach Ray at a moment when he can reply or
> look into it.  (And to be clear, that's just a suggestion, I'm not
> saying you need to do this. :)

Good point.

> 
> * I do think that if and when such bugs are closed, they generate a
>   message to the reporter (and others on the CC list) that if they
>   still apply to a current release, to reopen and change the release.

I believe bugzilla sends an email, but don't recall the contents. I
have reopened bugs under such circumstances but don't remember if they
were in RH's bugzilla or elsewhere.

> 
> > As you say, probably an upstream bug. Given the likely nature of the
> > problem, I doubt it's a packaging issue. Speaking of "too much to
> > ask", could Mr. Strode enter the upstream issue number or URL and
> > mark the bug appropriately?
> 
> Perhaps.  It may already be in the gnome bugzilla.  It'd just take
> someone to search there and tag the rh bugzilla appropriately.  Ray
> may or may not have time to do that (I don't know him personally.)

Ah, I was assuming that if Ray decided it was an upstream bug he'd
file in their bugzilla (and search prior to filing, etc.). In that
case, he'd know the number.

> 
> I think that generally, if a bug is likely to be an upstream bug (not
> a distro-specific or packaging bug), that it should be reported
> upstream directly.  That way it can be addressed and fixed upstream
> for all distros to pick up when an update occurs.  Who knows, maybe
> the bug you reported has been fixed by another distro maintainer and
> no one has yet reported it upstream so we can all get the fix.

I had understood that Fedora preferred such bugs to be filed in RH's
bugzilla and if necessary the maintainer would file upstream. I don't
recall where I got that, and it may have changed since I did.

I would think the packager, especially a person who is both
maintaining a package and actively contributing to the upstream
project, would be in a better position to determine whether to report
upstream than an end user.

> 
> > He hasn't even taken ownership, so I have no reason to believe he
> > has reported it upstream.
> 
> Sometimes this can be caused by bugs getting reassigned as teams at
> RedHat change members.  I'm not saying the bug shouldn't get
> acknowledged or anything, just offering a possibly reasonable
> explanation for why it's gone so long without even being assigned.

When someone owning bugs leaves a team, he (or his manager)
mass-assigns his bugs to a special management account specifically for
the purpose. When someone new comes in or someone else is assigned a
package to maintain, management then assigns that person bugs from the
special account. Been there, done that.

I know there are other ways bugs can slip through the cracks. I've
probably committed a few of them myself. Good management processes
minimize that sort of thing.

-- 

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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20070826/e192719a/attachment-0002.bin