[gentoo-project] The meaning of RESOLVED/UPSTREAM on bugzie

[gentoo-project] The meaning of RESOLVED/UPSTREAM on bugzie

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2198 bytes --]

Hi, everyone.

I'd like to bring the problem of ambiguity of 'UPSTREAM' resolution on
our Bugzilla to the discussion.

While the resolution generically indicates an issue upstream, it is used
differently by different developers, and sometimes even in a few
meanings by a single developer. What's even worse, it is both used
as a positive, neutral and negative resolution which renders it kinda
meaningless as a classification criteria.


If you grep the Bugzilla for bugs RESO/UPSTREAM, you'd notice it is used
to indicate:

a. that the bug has been reported upstream (but not fixed) [1],

b. that the bug has been fixed upstream (but did the fix find its way
into ::gentoo?) [2],

c. that the bug *should* be reported upstream by the user [3],

d. that the user should seek help upstream [kinda not-a-bug] [4],

e. that the bug has been reported upstream and worked around in ::gentoo
[5],

f. that the answer 'is always the same' (whatever that might mean) [6],

g. that the behavior is defined upstream and the user should discuss
changing it there [7],

h. that the issue has been fixed upstream and made its way to ::gentoo
via version bump [8].


As indicated above, this is meaningless most of them. It indicates both
bugs that are fixed, bugs that need to be fixed and reports that have
been rejected. It indicates both bugs needing user action, and those
expecting developer action.

I should point out that we also have an 'UPSTREAM' keyword which some
developers are combining with regular statuses.

How would you feel about removing/disabling the UPSTREAM resolution,
and expecting developers to use UPSTREAM keyword + regular resolution?
Any other ideas?


[1]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=612868#c4
[2]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=612006#c4
[3]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=611930#c2
[4]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=611654#c8
[5]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=610628#c8
[6]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=610058#c4
[7]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=608080#c1
[8]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=603480#c1

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 963 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] The meaning of RESOLVED/UPSTREAM on bugzie

[Marek Szuba]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 310 bytes --]

On 2017-03-29 09:56, Michał Górny wrote:

> How would you feel about removing/disabling the UPSTREAM resolution, 
> and expecting developers to use UPSTREAM keyword + regular
> resolution? Any other ideas?
In light of all the clearly demonstrated ambiguity, I would say it's a
good idea.

-- 
MS


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] The meaning of RESOLVED/UPSTREAM on bugzie

[Paweł Hajdan, Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 446 bytes --]

On 29/03/2017 11:29, Marek Szuba wrote:
> On 2017-03-29 09:56, Michał Górny wrote:
>> How would you feel about removing/disabling the UPSTREAM resolution, 
>> and expecting developers to use UPSTREAM keyword + regular
>> resolution? Any other ideas?
> In light of all the clearly demonstrated ambiguity, I would say it's a
> good idea.

+1

I like the simplification - it's easier to figure out what resolution to
pick.

Paweł


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] The meaning of RESOLVED/UPSTREAM on bugzie

[Seemant Kulleen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 798 bytes --]

From my vantage point (R:U has never sat well with me), this is a grand
idea, Michal!

+1



*--*
*Oakland Finish Up Weekend*
Be Amazed.  Be Amazing.
Get Mentored | Get Inspired | *Finish* *Up*
http://oaklandfinishup.com


On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 6:49 AM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. <phajdan.jr@gentoo.org>
wrote:

> On 29/03/2017 11:29, Marek Szuba wrote:
> > On 2017-03-29 09:56, Michał Górny wrote:
> >> How would you feel about removing/disabling the UPSTREAM resolution,
> >> and expecting developers to use UPSTREAM keyword + regular
> >> resolution? Any other ideas?
> > In light of all the clearly demonstrated ambiguity, I would say it's a
> > good idea.
>
> +1
>
> I like the simplification - it's easier to figure out what resolution to
> pick.
>
> Paweł
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1667 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] The meaning of RESOLVED/UPSTREAM on bugzie

[Ulrich Mueller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1221 bytes --]

>>>>> On Wed, 29 Mar 2017, Michał Górny wrote:

> I'd like to bring the problem of ambiguity of 'UPSTREAM' resolution
> on our Bugzilla to the discussion.

> While the resolution generically indicates an issue upstream, it is
> used differently by different developers, and sometimes even in a
> few meanings by a single developer. What's even worse, it is both
> used as a positive, neutral and negative resolution which renders it
> kinda meaningless as a classification criteria.

> [...]

> How would you feel about removing/disabling the UPSTREAM resolution,
> and expecting developers to use UPSTREAM keyword + regular
> resolution?
> Any other ideas?

Use it in the sense as it is defined in Bugzilla?

UPSTREAM
    The requested bug is considered to be out of the purview of the
    distro and should be submitted/discussed directly with the
    respective upstream project. This could include a number of things
    such as changing default configuration options or behavior, adding
    new options or functionality, or deleting support for older
    systems.

IMHO it would be out of proportion to remove the field, just because
some developers don't use it as intended.

Ulrich

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] The meaning of RESOLVED/UPSTREAM on bugzie

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1422 bytes --]

On śro, 2017-03-29 at 16:01 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, 29 Mar 2017, Michał Górny wrote:
> > I'd like to bring the problem of ambiguity of 'UPSTREAM' resolution
> > on our Bugzilla to the discussion.
> > While the resolution generically indicates an issue upstream, it is
> > used differently by different developers, and sometimes even in a
> > few meanings by a single developer. What's even worse, it is both
> > used as a positive, neutral and negative resolution which renders it
> > kinda meaningless as a classification criteria.
> > [...]
> > How would you feel about removing/disabling the UPSTREAM resolution,
> > and expecting developers to use UPSTREAM keyword + regular
> > resolution?
> > Any other ideas?
> 
> Use it in the sense as it is defined in Bugzilla?
> 
> UPSTREAM
>     The requested bug is considered to be out of the purview of the
>     distro and should be submitted/discussed directly with the
>     respective upstream project. This could include a number of things
>     such as changing default configuration options or behavior, adding
>     new options or functionality, or deleting support for older
>     systems.
> 
> IMHO it would be out of proportion to remove the field, just because
> some developers don't use it as intended.

What is your plan on making the developers use it correctly?

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 963 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] The meaning of RESOLVED/UPSTREAM on bugzie

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2004 bytes --]

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 04:15:01PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> On śro, 2017-03-29 at 16:01 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wed, 29 Mar 2017, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > I'd like to bring the problem of ambiguity of 'UPSTREAM' resolution
> > > on our Bugzilla to the discussion.
> > > While the resolution generically indicates an issue upstream, it is
> > > used differently by different developers, and sometimes even in a
> > > few meanings by a single developer. What's even worse, it is both
> > > used as a positive, neutral and negative resolution which renders it
> > > kinda meaningless as a classification criteria.
> > > [...]
> > > How would you feel about removing/disabling the UPSTREAM resolution,
> > > and expecting developers to use UPSTREAM keyword + regular
> > > resolution?
> > > Any other ideas?
> > 
> > Use it in the sense as it is defined in Bugzilla?
> > 
> > UPSTREAM
> >     The requested bug is considered to be out of the purview of the
> >     distro and should be submitted/discussed directly with the
> >     respective upstream project. This could include a number of things
> >     such as changing default configuration options or behavior, adding
> >     new options or functionality, or deleting support for older
> >     systems.
> > 
> > IMHO it would be out of proportion to remove the field, just because
> > some developers don't use it as intended.
> 
> What is your plan on making the developers use it correctly?

I'm with ulm on this, we shouldn't remove the resolution just because
developers haven't been using it correctly; that would be trying to
solve a social issue with a technical fix which would make future
resolutions invalid.

As I said in my other post, resolved/invalid = "this is not a bug.", but
resolved/upstream = "this is out of our scope as a distro, please
discussit with upstream."

They are slightly different meanings, but I think we should keep both of
them.

William


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] The meaning of RESOLVED/UPSTREAM on bugzie

[Kent Fredric]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3290 bytes --]

On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 16:01:18 +0200
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:

> UPSTREAM
>     The requested bug is considered to be out of the purview of the
>     distro and should be submitted/discussed directly with the
>     respective upstream project. This could include a number of things
>     such as changing default configuration options or behavior, adding
>     new options or functionality, or deleting support for older
>     systems.
> 
> IMHO it would be out of proportion to remove the field, just because
> some developers don't use it as intended.

To me, this is a case of "bad choice of name leads to bad use"

I doubt many people actually know that definition.

But naming is hard.

The RESO/UPSTREAM situation would be *much* better if bugs that were marked
that way injected a blob of text *somewhere* on the page in a different colour
to inform the user about what it means.

"This bug has been marked `Upstream`, which means the nature of your request
 is outside the scope of things Gentoo developers consider to be things within
 their realm of responsibilities to resolve.

 Please contact upstream and have them implement your feature/fix your bug
 there, instead"

As it stands, receiving a "RESO/UPSTREAM" resolution is almost as big a slap in the face
as "RESO/INVALID". 

_Especially_ when a developer marks a ticket as that without adequate explanation as to
why.

All you see is "Piss off mate, we don't like ya"

Even a class of "Resolved" is pretty much not useful here, because it implies
to the reader "the bug is gone", even though its not really.

"DEFERRED/OUTOFSCOPE" would probably be a more adequate and natural resolution
if you had to make one in a very small amount of space that conveyed all the right information.

Because then, if its merely "deferred", that implies it can be pushed back to Gentoo in
some capacity once external effort is complete, and then the author of the bug can:

1. Change the name of the bug from a request for a change, to a request for a bump to the feature-including bug
2. Change the resolution back to open
3. Have the bug resolved / Fixed.

"DEFERRED/TESTREQ" -- Its not resolved, but action can't complete until somebody tests it
"DEFERRED/INVALID" -- Data given so far indicates its not a bug, but perhaps better data could change that
"DEFERRED/NEEDINFO" -- Its not "fixed" as such, but we can't continue due to lack of information.

But I guess I'm reacting too much to the use of the word "Resolved", which is a bit easy to conflate.

Because while it is /a resolution/, "resolved" in colloquial usage /implies/ "fixed", even though
its use in bugzilla is no such thing.

But I think a renaming/recategorizing campeign at this point is too much, and an alternative of finding a way to embed
resolution-descriptions as helper text in the issue once a resolution state has been chosen, to smooth the path for the reader,
and to _reinforce_ what that resolution means, would probably be more productive.

But I suspect such a feature is best petitioned to bugzilla, so I could file a bug about this in Gentoo bugzilla that we
add this feature, and somebody can mark it "RESOLVED: UPSTREAM" and really satiate my meta-recursion fetish.



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] The meaning of RESOLVED/UPSTREAM on bugzie

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 481 bytes --]

On Thursday, March 30, 2017 2:34:56 PM EDT Kent Fredric wrote:
>
> _Especially_ when a developer marks a ticket as that without adequate
> explanation as to why.

That sounds like the problem. Do not rely on status/keywords alone. Anytime 
those change, a comment should be included as to why. That seems like it would 
clear up much of the confusion. Simply do not change status/keywords without a 
comment to briefly explain the change and/or usage.
 
-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] The meaning of RESOLVED/UPSTREAM on bugzie

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 970 bytes --]

On czw, 2017-03-30 at 14:41 -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> On Thursday, March 30, 2017 2:34:56 PM EDT Kent Fredric wrote:
> > 
> > _Especially_ when a developer marks a ticket as that without adequate
> > explanation as to why.
> 
> That sounds like the problem. Do not rely on status/keywords alone. Anytime 
> those change, a comment should be included as to why. That seems like it would 
> clear up much of the confusion. Simply do not change status/keywords without a 
> comment to briefly explain the change and/or usage.
>  

Because obviously everyone has lots of time to open multiple bugs just
to find where the developer should have explained what he meant when he
closed the bug using unclear status.

While at it, maybe we should just remove all resolutions and expect
people to open every bug and read comments. Or maybe remove statuses
altogether, that will clear every confusion possible!

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 963 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] The meaning of RESOLVED/UPSTREAM on bugzie

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1213 bytes --]

On Thursday, March 30, 2017 2:46:08 PM EDT Michał Górny wrote:
> On czw, 2017-03-30 at 14:41 -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 30, 2017 2:34:56 PM EDT Kent Fredric wrote:
> > > _Especially_ when a developer marks a ticket as that without adequate
> > > explanation as to why.
> > 
> > That sounds like the problem. Do not rely on status/keywords alone.
> > Anytime
> > those change, a comment should be included as to why. That seems like it
> > would clear up much of the confusion. Simply do not change
> > status/keywords without a comment to briefly explain the change and/or
> > usage.
> 
> Because obviously everyone has lots of time to open multiple bugs just
> to find where the developer should have explained what he meant when he
> closed the bug using unclear status.

Why products like Deskzilla exist...
http://almworks.com/deskzilla/overview.html
http://almworks.com/assets/images/deskzilla/deskzilla_overview.png

If time is of concern, buy a license and it will save you time.

It may be possible for a Trustee to contact ALMWorks and see if they would 
donate/sponsor license for Gentoo devs for use on Gentoo.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] The meaning of RESOLVED/UPSTREAM on bugzie

[Rich Freeman]

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 3:05 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
<wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:
>
> It may be possible for a Trustee to contact ALMWorks and see if they would
> donate/sponsor license for Gentoo devs for use on Gentoo.
>

Already done:
https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/3e38a8763a20a730f99704bcd92343ad

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] The meaning of RESOLVED/UPSTREAM on bugzie

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

On Friday, March 31, 2017 9:13:57 AM EDT Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 3:05 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
> 
> <wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:
> > It may be possible for a Trustee to contact ALMWorks and see if they would
> > donate/sponsor license for Gentoo devs for use on Gentoo.
> 
> Already done:
> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/3e38a8763a20a730f99704bcd9234
> 3ad

Nice I was not aware of that, then or now. Is the license still valid?

The package in tree, is very old. 1.7.1 current is 3.2.1

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

Re: [gentoo-project] The meaning of RESOLVED/UPSTREAM on bugzie

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:38 AM, William L. Thomson Jr.
<wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:
> On Friday, March 31, 2017 9:13:57 AM EDT Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 3:05 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
>>
>> <wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:
>> > It may be possible for a Trustee to contact ALMWorks and see if they would
>> > donate/sponsor license for Gentoo devs for use on Gentoo.
>>
>> Already done:
>> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/3e38a8763a20a730f99704bcd9234
>> 3ad
>
> Nice I was not aware of that, then or now. Is the license still valid?
>
> The package in tree, is very old. 1.7.1 current is 3.2.1

I can't vouch for that.  It was the first thing I thought of when I
saw the email.  If it isn't valid then we could of course ask for a
new one if there is interest.  I'm not sure if their policy toward
such things has changed, but I believe in the past they would
generally give a URL-locked license to FOSS orgs on request.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] The meaning of RESOLVED/UPSTREAM on bugzie

[Thomas Deutschmann]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1161 bytes --]

On 2017-03-31 16:45, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:38 AM, William L. Thomson Jr.
> <wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:
>> On Friday, March 31, 2017 9:13:57 AM EDT Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 3:05 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
>>>
>>> <wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:
>>>> It may be possible for a Trustee to contact ALMWorks and see if they would
>>>> donate/sponsor license for Gentoo devs for use on Gentoo.
>>>
>>> Already done:
>>> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/3e38a8763a20a730f99704bcd9234
>>> 3ad
>>
>> Nice I was not aware of that, then or now. Is the license still valid?
>>
>> The package in tree, is very old. 1.7.1 current is 3.2.1
> 
> I can't vouch for that.  It was the first thing I thought of when I
> saw the email.  If it isn't valid then we could of course ask for a
> new one if there is interest.  I'm not sure if their policy toward
> such things has changed, but I believe in the past they would
> generally give a URL-locked license to FOSS orgs on request.

I just tested the latest version (3.2.1) and the license is still valid.
Very nice!


-- 
Regards,
Thomas


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 951 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] The meaning of RESOLVED/UPSTREAM on bugzie

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 820 bytes --]

On Thursday, March 30, 2017 2:41:02 PM EDT William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> On Thursday, March 30, 2017 2:34:56 PM EDT Kent Fredric wrote:
> > _Especially_ when a developer marks a ticket as that without adequate
> > explanation as to why.
> 
> That sounds like the problem. Do not rely on status/keywords alone. Anytime
> those change, a comment should be included as to why. That seems like it
> would clear up much of the confusion. Simply do not change status/keywords
> without a comment to briefly explain the change and/or usage.

It may even be possible to force this pragmatically. Require a comment with 
any status/keyword change via code. Form submit validation requirement. That 
way no one can get around it. It also does not require further enforcement, 
social or otherwise :)

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] The meaning of RESOLVED/UPSTREAM on bugzie

[Kent Fredric]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 741 bytes --]

On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 14:50:59 -0400
"William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:

> It may even be possible to force this pragmatically. Require a comment with 
> any status/keyword change via code. Form submit validation requirement. That 
> way no one can get around it. It also does not require further enforcement, 
> social or otherwise :)

Or, as a hybrid between that suggestion and my other "packaged response", perhaps
pre-fill the comment section with a templated response for various resolution types.

That way it discourages using the wrong resolution, by way of forcing you to either
say the template, or delete the templated answer and provide your own.

Eh, but I see potential implementation fun there.

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] The meaning of RESOLVED/UPSTREAM on bugzie

[Kristian Fiskerstrand]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1216 bytes --]

On 03/30/2017 09:40 PM, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 14:50:59 -0400
> "William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:
> 
>> It may even be possible to force this pragmatically. Require a comment with 
>> any status/keyword change via code. Form submit validation requirement. That 
>> way no one can get around it. It also does not require further enforcement, 
>> social or otherwise :)
> 
> Or, as a hybrid between that suggestion and my other "packaged response", perhaps
> pre-fill the comment section with a templated response for various resolution types.
> 
> That way it discourages using the wrong resolution, by way of forcing you to either
> say the template, or delete the templated answer and provide your own.
> 
> Eh, but I see potential implementation fun there.
> 

It wouldn't be too far of a stretch to argue a template text is
redundant information given the statuses are already defined one click
away. Maybe people should read them a bit more often, which itself can
be a documentation issue... but still..

-- 
Kristian Fiskerstrand
OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] The meaning of RESOLVED/UPSTREAM on bugzie

[Kent Fredric]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1047 bytes --]

On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 21:50:05 +0200
Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@gentoo.org> wrote:

>  Maybe people should read them a bit more often, which itself can
> be a documentation issue... but still..

But the problem has manifested that significant usage occurs in contradiction
of the documented purpose.

Which either means:

1. The documented purpose is wrong for the name people use, and we should change the docs
2. The name of the feature is wrong, and we should change that to better reflect the docs
3. We should create some mechanism by which the purpose for the name is unavoidably obvious to both
   the people who specify it, and the audience the specification is targeted at.
4. We should abolish the feature entirely

Though I think 4 is a bit of an extreme stance.

However, Fixing 1 wont actually do anything useful, because its demonstrated that
multiple different uses for the term are in play. 

So that leaves only 2 and 3 as viable options under the assumption we retain it.

Yelling RTFM only works so much.

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] The meaning of RESOLVED/UPSTREAM on bugzie

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1390 bytes --]

On czw, 2017-03-30 at 21:50 +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> On 03/30/2017 09:40 PM, Kent Fredric wrote:
> > On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 14:50:59 -0400
> > "William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > It may even be possible to force this pragmatically. Require a comment with 
> > > any status/keyword change via code. Form submit validation requirement. That 
> > > way no one can get around it. It also does not require further enforcement, 
> > > social or otherwise :)
> > 
> > Or, as a hybrid between that suggestion and my other "packaged response", perhaps
> > pre-fill the comment section with a templated response for various resolution types.
> > 
> > That way it discourages using the wrong resolution, by way of forcing you to either
> > say the template, or delete the templated answer and provide your own.
> > 
> > Eh, but I see potential implementation fun there.
> > 
> 
> It wouldn't be too far of a stretch to argue a template text is
> redundant information given the statuses are already defined one click
> away. Maybe people should read them a bit more often, which itself can
> be a documentation issue... but still..
> 

You are wrongly assuming that Gentoo developers are going to read
documentation and follow it, rather than reinventing the existing status
to their own purposes.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 963 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] The meaning of RESOLVED/UPSTREAM on bugzie

[Kristian Fiskerstrand]

[Sent from my iPad, as it is not a secured device there are no cryptographic keys on this device, meaning this message is sent without an OpenPGP signature. In general you should *not* rely on any information sent over such an unsecure channel, if you find any information controversial or un-expected send a response and request a signed confirmation]

> On 29 Mar 2017, at 09:56, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> How would you feel about removing/disabling the UPSTREAM resolution,
> and expecting developers to use UPSTREAM keyword + regular resolution?
> Any other ideas?

Upstream keyword doesn't seem relevant as it implies having submitted patch or at least filed bug upstream, so the real question is whether we need a separation of something that is out of scope for Gentoo and can be referred upstream or not. The way I see it, directly using RESOLVED INVALID is likely as good an explaination as RESOLVED UPSTREAM unless we want to monitor stats for rejection reasons.

Re: [gentoo-project] The meaning of RESOLVED/UPSTREAM on bugzie

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1440 bytes --]

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 04:15:12PM +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> 
> 
> [Sent from my iPad, as it is not a secured device there are no cryptographic keys on this device, meaning this message is sent without an OpenPGP signature. In general you should *not* rely on any information sent over such an unsecure channel, if you find any information controversial or un-expected send a response and request a signed confirmation]
> 
> > On 29 Mar 2017, at 09:56, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > 
> > How would you feel about removing/disabling the UPSTREAM resolution,
> > and expecting developers to use UPSTREAM keyword + regular resolution?
> > Any other ideas?
> 
> Upstream keyword doesn't seem relevant as it implies having submitted patch or at least filed bug upstream, so the real question is whether we need a separation of something that is out of scope for Gentoo and can be referred upstream or not. The way I see it, directly using RESOLVED INVALID is likely as good an explaination as RESOLVED UPSTREAM unless we want to monitor stats for rejection reasons.

I disagree with resolved/invalid being appropriate. That means it isn't
a bug at all. Resolved/upstream should be used when we direct a user to
file an issue upstream or file the issue ourselves.

Resolved/upstream acknowledges that this is an issue but directs it
upstream. Resolved/invalid says this isn't an issue.

William


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] The meaning of RESOLVED/UPSTREAM on bugzie

[M. J. Everitt]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 985 bytes --]

On 30/03/17 18:52, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 04:15:12PM +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>> Upstream keyword doesn't seem relevant as it implies having submitted patch or at least filed bug upstream, so the real question is whether we need a separation of something that is out of scope for Gentoo and can be referred upstream or not. The way I see it, directly using RESOLVED INVALID is likely as good an explaination as RESOLVED UPSTREAM unless we want to monitor stats for rejection reasons.
> I disagree with resolved/invalid being appropriate. That means it isn't
> a bug at all. Resolved/upstream should be used when we direct a user to
> file an issue upstream or file the issue ourselves.
>
> Resolved/upstream acknowledges that this is an issue but directs it
> upstream. Resolved/invalid says this isn't an issue.
>
> William
>
I've often thought that "RESO:INVA" is simply tech-speak for "we're not
gonna [investigate] fix that ... "


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] The meaning of RESOLVED/UPSTREAM on bugzie

[Kristian Fiskerstrand]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 882 bytes --]

On 03/30/2017 07:52 PM, William Hubbs wrote:


> 
> I disagree with resolved/invalid being appropriate. That means it isn't
> a bug at all. Resolved/upstream should be used when we direct a user to
> file an issue upstream or file the issue ourselves.
> 
> Resolved/upstream acknowledges that this is an issue but directs it
> upstream. Resolved/invalid says this isn't an issue.
> 

If it actually is a bug affecting users it shouldn't be closed to begin
with but kept open , this would be appropriate use of the UPSTREAM
keyword after filing the bug and preferably updating URL field to point
to bug report.

From a gentoo point of view, the issue would require fixing and
stabilization before the bug is closed.

-- 
Kristian Fiskerstrand
OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] The meaning of RESOLVED/UPSTREAM on bugzie

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 769 bytes --]

> How would you feel about removing/disabling the UPSTREAM resolution,

Right now there is no agreement on what RESOLVED UPSTREAM is supposed to mean, 
and everybody is using it in a different sense. Nothing in this thread 
indicates any effective measures to improve that.

So, yes I'm for removing it.

My advice for serious upstream bugs that Gentoo can't do much about is to 
1) keep the Gentoo bug open until it's fixed
2) add a whiteboard note like "[tracking upstream]"
3) and linking the upstream bug report in URL
If there is no upstream bug, make one or ask the reporter to make one and link 
to it (resolved needinfo in the meantime if needed).

-- 
Andreas K. Hüttel
dilfridge@gentoo.org
Gentoo Linux developer (council, perl, libreoffice)

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 981 bytes --]