[gentoo-dev] [RFC] Removing the distinction between UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED bugs

[gentoo-dev] [RFC] Removing the distinction between UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED bugs

[Michał Górny]

Hi,

I'd like to propose replacing the current UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED bug
states with a simple NEW state.  Why?

1. Only a handful of developers actually uses these two statuses
in a meaningful way.

2. Some users are confused and demotivated by having their bugs stay
UNCONFIRMED for a long time.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Removing the distinction between UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED bugs

[Sam James]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 831 bytes --]



> On 3 Dec 2022, at 07:09, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I'd like to propose replacing the current UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED bug
> states with a simple NEW state.  Why?
> 
> 1. Only a handful of developers actually uses these two statuses
> in a meaningful way.
> 
> 2. Some users are confused and demotivated by having their bugs stay
> UNCONFIRMED for a long time.
> 

Yes please. We can always revisit if an actual issue arises wrt needing
to show things as "CONFIRMED", but I've not seen any usage of
UNCONFIRMED vs CONFIRMED in a way that matters other than
helping out confused users.

While at it, I'd love to talk about UPSTREAM [0] , but that's for
another day :)

[0] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/a16cedda9f4b3f8d88e3291d5d0201da

best.
sam


[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 358 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Removing the distinction between UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED bugs

[Ulrich Mueller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 626 bytes --]

>>>>> On Sat, 03 Dec 2022, Michał Górny wrote:

> I'd like to propose replacing the current UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED
> bug states with a simple NEW state. Why?

> 1. Only a handful of developers actually uses these two statuses
> in a meaningful way.

> 2. Some users are confused and demotivated by having their bugs stay
> UNCONFIRMED for a long time.

Then rename UNCONFIRMED to NEW-WITH-SUGAR-ON-TOP-WE-ARE-A-HAPPY-COMMUNITY,
and leave CONFIRMED alone? :)

However, I suspect that the real problem isn't the status label, but
when there's no action on the bug (sometimes for months or years).

Ulrich

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 507 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Removing the distinction between UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED bugs

[Michał Górny]

On Sat, 2022-12-03 at 09:39 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > > > > On Sat, 03 Dec 2022, Michał Górny wrote:
> 
> > I'd like to propose replacing the current UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED
> > bug states with a simple NEW state. Why?
> 
> > 1. Only a handful of developers actually uses these two statuses
> > in a meaningful way.
> 
> > 2. Some users are confused and demotivated by having their bugs stay
> > UNCONFIRMED for a long time.
> 
> Then rename UNCONFIRMED to NEW-WITH-SUGAR-ON-TOP-WE-ARE-A-HAPPY-
> COMMUNITY,

Done.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Removing the distinction between UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED bugs

[Toralf Förster]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 355 bytes --]

On 12/3/22 10:53, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sat, 2022-12-03 at 09:39 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> Then rename UNCONFIRMED to NEW-WITH-SUGAR-ON-TOP-WE-ARE-A-HAPPY-
>> COMMUNITY,
> 
> Done.
> 

I do search for bugs using pybugz  and gre3p for CONFIRMED and do wonder 
if/when I shall grep for NEW too ?

-- 
Toralf
PGP 23217DA7 9B888F45


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 840 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Removing the distinction between UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED bugs

[Ulrich Mueller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1852 bytes --]

>>>>> On Sat, 03 Dec 2022, Michał Górny wrote:

>> > I'd like to propose replacing the current UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED
>> > bug states with a simple NEW state. Why?
>> 
>> > 1. Only a handful of developers actually uses these two statuses
>> > in a meaningful way.
>> 
>> > 2. Some users are confused and demotivated by having their bugs stay
>> > UNCONFIRMED for a long time.
>> 
>> Then rename UNCONFIRMED to NEW-WITH-SUGAR-ON-TOP-WE-ARE-A-HAPPY-
>> COMMUNITY,

> Done.

Seriously, we had UNCONFIRMED, NEW, and ASSIGNED before. The default
status used to be NEW, but with "expert" reporting users could
explicitly assign the status to UNCONFIRMED.

Some people found that not satisfactory, so NEW and ASSIGNED were
replaced by CONFIRMED and IN_PROGRESS. (We also had status REOPENED
which was removed with the same change.) Unfortunately, I cannot find
the old discussion, but [1] suggests that the change took place in 2011
or before.

The Bugzilla Guide [2] still has the old wording:

| • UNCONFIRMED - You're generally not going to see this too often.
|   This means that a bug reporter has opened a bug using the advanced
|   method and is uncertain their bug is an actual bug.
| • NEW - Bugs that are first opened are considered new.

Tracing the history of that text, it was the same in 2005 [3], and seems
to originate from [4].

A previous discussion about this topic (started by you :) can be found
in [5], BTW.

Ulrich

[1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/391203#c1
[2] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Bugzilla/Guide#Working_with_a_bug
[3] https://gitweb.gentoo.org/archive/proj/gentoo.git/commit/xml/htdocs/doc/en/bugzilla-howto.xml?id=6947795f3817a6779a81d768e9a5a07380d56aa4
[4] https://bugs.gentoo.org/97274
[5] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/b24ea134d3555cd25560090cf4a87657

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 507 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Removing the distinction between UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED bugs

[Ulrich Mueller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 831 bytes --]

>>>>> On Sat, 03 Dec 2022, Ulrich Mueller wrote:

> Some people found that not satisfactory, so NEW and ASSIGNED were
> replaced by CONFIRMED and IN_PROGRESS. (We also had status REOPENED
> which was removed with the same change.) Unfortunately, I cannot find
> the old discussion, but [1] suggests that the change took place in 2011
> or before.

In 2011, actually. Discussion is here:
https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/a22baae8830ca806684da98ce7698206

"Right now, it seems logical to use UNCONFIRMED for the new bugs and let
devs (re-)confirm them as necessary.
I think it might be even a good idea to limit the possibility of setting
'CONFIRMED' to devs. Otherwise, I see users bumping each of their bugs
to 'CONFIRMED' immediately."
https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/33e6f39fbfafe95c18c563b12c61d9f0

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 507 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Removing the distinction between UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED bugs

[Florian Schmaus]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1847 bytes --]

On 03/12/2022 08.09, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'd like to propose replacing the current UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED bug
> states with a simple NEW state.  Why?
> 
> 1. Only a handful of developers actually uses these two statuses
> in a meaningful way.
> 
> 2. Some users are confused and demotivated by having their bugs stay
> UNCONFIRMED for a long time.

While I do not strictly oppose that change, I like the UNCONFIRMED / 
CONFIRMED states.

I don't know how 1. is an argument for removing it. Quite the contrary, 
the statement itself says that the feature is used. Furthermore, it is 
not my observation that only a handful of developers use it. Most open 
bugs are in the CONF state [1], so I would conclude that most use the 
feature. Of course, that depends on your definition of "used in a 
meaningful way". For me, CONFIRMED was always about someone, usually a 
-dev, acknowledging that the bug reports a valid issue that needs to be 
addressed (either by Gentoo or upstream). Is that using it in a 
meaningful way?

And 2. doesn't appear to be a solution but helps disguise the underlying 
issue. We should instead educate users that Gentoo, like most 
volunteer-driven FOSS projects, is short on the workforce. Therefore 
users can only expect that some bugs will be handled immediately, while 
others may lay dormant for an extended period (for different reasons).

Ultimately, the central angle to tackle this issue is e to empower users 
to fix the problems themselves or at least provide minimal reproducers 
and debugging information. We already put in much effort (and we are 
IMHO quite good at it already), but it requires continuous effort…

- Flow


1: 
https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?component=Current%20packages&list_id=6623145&product=Gentoo%20Linux&resolution=---

[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 21081 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 495 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Removing the distinction between UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED bugs

[Michał Górny]

On Sat, 2022-12-03 at 11:42 +0100, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> On 03/12/2022 08.09, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I'd like to propose replacing the current UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED bug
> > states with a simple NEW state.  Why?
> > 
> > 1. Only a handful of developers actually uses these two statuses
> > in a meaningful way.
> > 
> > 2. Some users are confused and demotivated by having their bugs stay
> > UNCONFIRMED for a long time.
> 
> While I do not strictly oppose that change, I like the UNCONFIRMED / 
> CONFIRMED states.
> 
> I don't know how 1. is an argument for removing it. Quite the contrary, 
> the statement itself says that the feature is used. Furthermore, it is 
> not my observation that only a handful of developers use it. Most open 
> bugs are in the CONF state [1], so I would conclude that most use the 
> feature. Of course, that depends on your definition of "used in a 
> meaningful way". For me, CONFIRMED was always about someone, usually a 
> -dev, acknowledging that the bug reports a valid issue that needs to be 
> addressed (either by Gentoo or upstream). Is that using it in a 
> meaningful way?

Does that imply that bugs that are UNCONFIRMED are not worth our effort?

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Removing the distinction between UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED bugs

[Florian Schmaus]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1532 bytes --]

On 03/12/2022 12.34, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sat, 2022-12-03 at 11:42 +0100, Florian Schmaus wrote:
>> On 03/12/2022 08.09, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'd like to propose replacing the current UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED bug
>>> states with a simple NEW state.  Why?
>>>
>>> 1. Only a handful of developers actually uses these two statuses
>>> in a meaningful way.
>>>
>>> 2. Some users are confused and demotivated by having their bugs stay
>>> UNCONFIRMED for a long time.
>>
>> While I do not strictly oppose that change, I like the UNCONFIRMED /
>> CONFIRMED states.
>>
>> I don't know how 1. is an argument for removing it. Quite the contrary,
>> the statement itself says that the feature is used. Furthermore, it is
>> not my observation that only a handful of developers use it. Most open
>> bugs are in the CONF state [1], so I would conclude that most use the
>> feature. Of course, that depends on your definition of "used in a
>> meaningful way". For me, CONFIRMED was always about someone, usually a
>> -dev, acknowledging that the bug reports a valid issue that needs to be
>> addressed (either by Gentoo or upstream). Is that using it in a
>> meaningful way?
> 
> Does that imply that bugs that are UNCONFIRMED are not worth our effort?

No, not all. Could you elaborate how you derive this implication?

I had always assumed that UNCONFIRMED means that nobody (as in, no dev) 
looked at the issue report and vetted its validity. Nothing more, 
nothing less.

- Flow


[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 21081 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 495 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Removing the distinction between UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED bugs

[Michał Górny]

On Sat, 2022-12-03 at 13:10 +0100, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> On 03/12/2022 12.34, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Sat, 2022-12-03 at 11:42 +0100, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> > > On 03/12/2022 08.09, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > I'd like to propose replacing the current UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED bug
> > > > states with a simple NEW state.  Why?
> > > > 
> > > > 1. Only a handful of developers actually uses these two statuses
> > > > in a meaningful way.
> > > > 
> > > > 2. Some users are confused and demotivated by having their bugs stay
> > > > UNCONFIRMED for a long time.
> > > 
> > > While I do not strictly oppose that change, I like the UNCONFIRMED /
> > > CONFIRMED states.
> > > 
> > > I don't know how 1. is an argument for removing it. Quite the contrary,
> > > the statement itself says that the feature is used. Furthermore, it is
> > > not my observation that only a handful of developers use it. Most open
> > > bugs are in the CONF state [1], so I would conclude that most use the
> > > feature. Of course, that depends on your definition of "used in a
> > > meaningful way". For me, CONFIRMED was always about someone, usually a
> > > -dev, acknowledging that the bug reports a valid issue that needs to be
> > > addressed (either by Gentoo or upstream). Is that using it in a
> > > meaningful way?
> > 
> > Does that imply that bugs that are UNCONFIRMED are not worth our effort?
> 
> No, not all. Could you elaborate how you derive this implication?
> 
> I had always assumed that UNCONFIRMED means that nobody (as in, no dev) 
> looked at the issue report and vetted its validity. Nothing more, 
> nothing less.
> 

I'm trying to understand what actual value this has.  Unless it's data
for the sake of having data.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Removing the distinction between UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED bugs

[Florian Schmaus]

On 03/12/2022 13.20, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sat, 2022-12-03 at 13:10 +0100, Florian Schmaus wrote:
>> On 03/12/2022 12.34, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2022-12-03 at 11:42 +0100, Florian Schmaus wrote:
>>>> On 03/12/2022 08.09, Michał Górny wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to propose replacing the current UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED bug
>>>>> states with a simple NEW state.  Why?
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Only a handful of developers actually uses these two statuses
>>>>> in a meaningful way.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Some users are confused and demotivated by having their bugs stay
>>>>> UNCONFIRMED for a long time.
>>>>
>>>> While I do not strictly oppose that change, I like the UNCONFIRMED /
>>>> CONFIRMED states.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know how 1. is an argument for removing it. Quite the contrary,
>>>> the statement itself says that the feature is used. Furthermore, it is
>>>> not my observation that only a handful of developers use it. Most open
>>>> bugs are in the CONF state [1], so I would conclude that most use the
>>>> feature. Of course, that depends on your definition of "used in a
>>>> meaningful way". For me, CONFIRMED was always about someone, usually a
>>>> -dev, acknowledging that the bug reports a valid issue that needs to be
>>>> addressed (either by Gentoo or upstream). Is that using it in a
>>>> meaningful way?
>>>
>>> Does that imply that bugs that are UNCONFIRMED are not worth our effort?
>>
>> No, not all. Could you elaborate how you derive this implication?
>>
>> I had always assumed that UNCONFIRMED means that nobody (as in, no dev)
>> looked at the issue report and vetted its validity. Nothing more,
>> nothing less.
>>
> 
> I'm trying to understand what actual value this has.  Unless it's data
> for the sake of having data.

That is a valid concern.

I think having UNCONFIRMED / CONFIRMED *helps* the issue reporter, and 
other (affected) persons, to decide if they need to "chase" the issue's 
assigned entity.

Assume looking at the open bugs list of a developer. If the developer 
has old bugs in UNCONFIRMED state, you may want to issue a friendly 
ping. Sure, strictly speaking, this would require all bugs to drop back 
to UNCONFIMRED when the bug assignee changes. But even without such an 
implicit mechanism, those two states provide some value.

A similar case can be made for IN_PROGRESS. However, I see how one could 
argue that IN_PROGRESS provides more value than UNCONFIRMED / CONFIRMED.

As I said, I do not strictly oppose this change. But since this is a 
RFC, I commented. :)

Maybe it is just me being used to bug transition states being

     NEW / UNCONFIRMED → CONFIRMED → IN_PROGRESS → CLOSED

(with intermediate states being optional)

- Flow

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Removing the distinction between UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED bugs

[Michał Górny]

On Sat, 2022-12-03 at 14:45 +0100, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> I think having UNCONFIRMED / CONFIRMED *helps* the issue reporter, and 
> other (affected) persons, to decide if they need to "chase" the issue's 
> assigned entity.
> 
> Assume looking at the open bugs list of a developer. If the developer 
> has old bugs in UNCONFIRMED state, you may want to issue a friendly 
> ping. Sure, strictly speaking, this would require all bugs to drop back 
> to UNCONFIMRED when the bug assignee changes. But even without such an 
> implicit mechanism, those two states provide some value.

I don't understand how UNCONFIRMED/CONFIRMED makes any difference here.
If I file a bug against some package, it is CONFIRMED by default.
If an unprivileged user files it, it's UNCONFIRMED.  In both cases
the assignee didn't do anything.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Removing the distinction between UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED bugs

[Florian Schmaus]

On 03/12/2022 14.50, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sat, 2022-12-03 at 14:45 +0100, Florian Schmaus wrote:
>> I think having UNCONFIRMED / CONFIRMED *helps* the issue reporter, and
>> other (affected) persons, to decide if they need to "chase" the issue's
>> assigned entity.
>>
>> Assume looking at the open bugs list of a developer. If the developer
>> has old bugs in UNCONFIRMED state, you may want to issue a friendly
>> ping. Sure, strictly speaking, this would require all bugs to drop back
>> to UNCONFIMRED when the bug assignee changes. But even without such an
>> implicit mechanism, those two states provide some value.
> 
> I don't understand how UNCONFIRMED/CONFIRMED makes any difference here.
> If I file a bug against some package, it is CONFIRMED by default.
> If an unprivileged user files it, it's UNCONFIRMED.  In both cases
> the assignee didn't do anything.

The assignee not doing anything keeps the bug UNCONFIRMED if it is 
filled by an unprivileged user. That makes the bug distinguishable from 
a bug that got "verified" by the assignee.

Yes, if *you* (as dev) fill a bug, then it is implicitly CONFIRMED 
(whether or not that is sensible is a different discussion). I do not 
see how this would invalidate my case, though.

- Flow

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Removing the distinction between UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED bugs

[Mike Pagano]

On 12/3/22 08:59, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> On 03/12/2022 14.50, Michał Górny wrote:
>> On Sat, 2022-12-03 at 14:45 +0100, Florian Schmaus wrote:
>>> I think having UNCONFIRMED / CONFIRMED *helps* the issue reporter, and
>>> other (affected) persons, to decide if they need to "chase" the issue's
>>> assigned entity.
>>>
>>> Assume looking at the open bugs list of a developer. If the developer
>>> has old bugs in UNCONFIRMED state, you may want to issue a friendly
>>> ping. Sure, strictly speaking, this would require all bugs to drop back
>>> to UNCONFIMRED when the bug assignee changes. But even without such an
>>> implicit mechanism, those two states provide some value.
>>
>> I don't understand how UNCONFIRMED/CONFIRMED makes any difference here.
>> If I file a bug against some package, it is CONFIRMED by default.
>> If an unprivileged user files it, it's UNCONFIRMED.  In both cases
>> the assignee didn't do anything.
> 
> The assignee not doing anything keeps the bug UNCONFIRMED if it is
> filled by an unprivileged user. That makes the bug distinguishable from
> a bug that got "verified" by the assignee.
> 
> Yes, if *you* (as dev) fill a bug, then it is implicitly CONFIRMED
> (whether or not that is sensible is a different discussion). I do not
> see how this would invalidate my case, though.
> 
> - Flow
> 

The kernel may be a special case, but personally I use unconfirmed and don't 'confirm' it until it's determined if it's a real kernel bug.
Sometimes the kernel is the messenger and not the cause.  But this is not a documented process and only exists in my head.

Whatever the consensus is I can live with.

-- 
Mike Pagano
Gentoo Developer - Kernel Project
Gentoo Sources - Lead
E-Mail     : mpagano@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP   : 52CC A0B0 F631 0B17 0142 F83F 92A6 DBEC 81F2 B137
Public Key : http://http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?search=0x92A6DBEC81F2B137&op=index

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Removing the distinction between UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED bugs

[Jonas Stein]

Hi all,

> I'd like to propose replacing the current UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED bug
> states with a simple NEW state.  Why?
> 
> 1. Only a handful of developers actually uses these two statuses
> in a meaningful way.
> 
> 2. Some users are confused and demotivated by having their bugs stay
> UNCONFIRMED for a long time.

As someone who is very active on bugzilla I think the users are happy about
- real activity and
- polite, precise and clear answers


Renaming tags will rather confuse.
Yes, some tickets are open for long times (this is not a Gentoo-only 
problem)
We should not hide this with Newspeak.

I suggest to keep it as it is, because sometimes it makes sense to 
confirm a bug.

Are not demotivated, because of the name of the tag.

They are demotivated, if
- bugs remain open/unanswered for long time
- they are told "my dev time is too expensive for your problems" in an 
impolite way

-- 
Best,
Jonas

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Removing the distinction between UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED bugs

[Mike Gilbert]

On Sat, Dec 3, 2022 at 2:09 AM Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to propose replacing the current UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED bug
> states with a simple NEW state.  Why?
>
> 1. Only a handful of developers actually uses these two statuses
> in a meaningful way.
>
> 2. Some users are confused and demotivated by having their bugs stay
> UNCONFIRMED for a long time.

I think I could be counted among the devs who at least try to use the
two statuses. If I stumble upon bugs that I have run into myself, I
will flip them from UNCONFIRMED to CONFIRMED. On the opposite end, I
occasionally downgrade bugs from CONFIRMED to UNCONFIRMED if they are
particularly strange looking and were filed by a script (tinderbox).

Anyway, if you decide to make the change, please ensure that it
doesn't generate a bunch of pointless bugmail. I have noticed that
some devs will replace obsolete values in Product/Component without
making any other meaningful changes to the bug. Let's avoid that
situation if possible here.