25 Jan
2017
25 Jan
'17
2:04 p.m.
You forgot to also quote the following from the same resource [1] you`ve
referenced:
"In general newer bugs should be marked as DUPLICATEs of older bugs, except
when the newer bug contains more information (bug description clearer,
patch already attached, lots of people already CC'ed, etc.)."
Thanks,
Eduard
----------
[1]
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Bugzilla/What_to_do_and_wh…
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Manuel Smeria <manuel(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
Hello again,
I'm reviving this thread since I found some Documentation links from
Mozilla which might help:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Bugzilla/
What_to_do_and_what_not_to_do_in_Bugzilla#Resolving_bugs_as_DUPLICATE
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Screening_
duplicate_bugs#Which_is_the_Duplicate
Quote:
"Other things being equal, newer bugs should be made DUPLICATES of older
bugs, but, more importantly, whichever bug is further along in the process
of getting fixed should *not* be made a duplicate. Signs that progess has
been made include:
[...]
* the bug has been analyzed by developers
* the bug report has a explanation of how to reliably reproduce the bug
and/or it has a simplified testcase"
The scenarios I'm talking about and also the one of
http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-13728 are perfectly described by the
previous quote.
Maybe we can also make a decision about this topic and make some changes to
the current procedure?
Thanks,
Manuel
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) <
valicac(a)gmail.com> wrote:
issue
the
finds
cause
makes
which
closed
other
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
I guess it's a case by case thing. For
example you cannot not change a
title like "It not working" or "Massive error on screen", etc.
I don't think we can reach a conclusion on this topic. Some issues are
describing the cause, while other are describing the effect. Some causes
could have multiple effects. Sometimes you cannot find the issue that was
reported before, some issue might be closed not by the book, etc. Since
we
document in written the new functionality we add
in the Release Notes,
any
issue we have will be mainly dedicated to devs,
not end-users. Having
clearer issue IMO is nicer (since cuts a next step to read all the
description and the comments), but sure, the language needs to be
moderately technical and be understood by the majority.
Thanks,
Caty
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net>
wrote:
he
> On 27 Sep 2016, at 11:38, Manuel Smeria <manuel(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Marius summed up pretty good exactly what I'm thinking.
> Users are not usually technical, so they will report the bug as they
see
> > it: the button doesn't work, the color is grey instead of blue, etc.
> > If the developer that investigates the issue finds the cause for it, > can
> > rephrase it using technical words inside the Git commit or even
inside
a
sync
looking
Jira
comment.
AFAIK the search function in Jira also works for comments.
So this would mean, not changing the title of the issue. Because if you
change the title you also need to change the description or you have a issue with a description not matching the title
(this was the case for
the
issue that led to this discussion).
When you search in jira (I use JIRA client), it highlight the search
terms
> in the title for example, giving more weight to the title.
>
> Having 2 issues makes it twice as likely to find the issue you’re > for (from a user pov or from a tech pov).
>
> But yes this could be considered minor and we could decide to not touch
> the title nor the description and simply add some comment explaining
the
> real cause.
>
> Thanks
> -Vincent
>
> > Thanks,
> > Manuel
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 9:28 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea <
> > mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Eduard Moraru <
enygma2002(a)gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi, Manuel,
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Manuel Smeria
<manuel(a)xwiki.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hello Devs,
> >>>>
> >>>> I would like to propose a new best practice for the way we close
> issues
> >>> as
> >>>> Duplicate.
> >>>>
> >>>> As an example I've reported this issue:
> >>>> http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-13728 which was later closed
as
a
> >>>> Duplicate to http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-13729.
> >>>>
> >>>> From my perspective, this is not correct since the issue I
reported
is
> >>>> valid from an user's POV.
> >>>> I would have preferred that my issue was renamed and that
developers
>> would
>>> have added some technical information as a comment to it if they
wanted
>>> to
>>>> do so.
>>>> It just doesn't make any sense to me to close a perfectly valid
>> as
>>> a
>>>> Duplicate just to create another one that has a more technically
>> correct
>>>> summary and description.
>>>>
>>>> It also doesn't make sense to close the original issue as a
Duplicate
> >> to
> >>> a
> >>>> duplicate issue :) (pun intended)
> >>>> I see things like this: my issue's description is a use-case of
> >> issue
> >>>> later reported by Edy, so if anything, Edy's issue should be
closed
as
> >> a
> >>>> Duplicate to mine and not the other way around.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>> As you have explained it yourself, the issue you have created is a
> >>> *usecase*, a *manifestation* of a real problem. That is why we have
> >>> identified the real problem (the "cause") and I have created
an
issue
> to
> >>> specifically address it and fix it, linking your manifestation
issue
to
many)
> >> of
> >>> its manifestations so that, when a user (or even a dev) does a
search
>> the
>>> actual problem that caused it. A developer will work to fix the
actual
>>
problem, and not its many manifestations. This way, in the issues
tracker
>>> (jira), we will have recorded both the actual problem and one (or >>
for a
>>> manifestation, it will be easy to find the actual problem he is
having
>>> (manifestation), but also the real
problem that caused it (and when
it
>> was
>>> fixed).
>>>
>>
>> The users will always report the manifestation of a problem. They
report
> >> what they see. They don't investigate. Following your practice would
> mean
> >> closing all user-reported issues as duplicate once the developer the
how
> the
> >> users are affected. The developer can look for details (like the > real cause. I don't think this is right.
Moreover, AFAIK the best
practice
>> when reporting issues, even for developers, is to describe the
>> manifestation in the issue title. What's important is to understand > of
> >> the problem) in the comments.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Marius
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> If we were to modify the manifestation issue or simply add a
comment,
we
mark
> >> the
> >>> manifestation issue as a duplicate of the "cause" issue,
which >> would lose all the above mentioned
information, which would not be
ideal,
>>> so, instead, even if it breaks a bit the chronology of things, we
>>> perfect sense when you look at it this way. Fixing the cause will
>>> automatically fix all reported manifestations which were clearly
marked
>> as
>>> duplicates of the cause.
>>>
>>> So, in practice, when there are more opened issues that are clearly
>>> duplicates, the one with the most information and that best
identifies
> >> the
> >>> real source of the problem is left opened, while all the others are
>>> addressing manifestations get closed as duplicates of the previous
one,
> >>> even if that issue happened to be reported later in the chronology.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> One scenario where I think issues dated previously should be as
older
>>>> Duplicate is if the new issue
has already been fixed. For example
when
>> a
>>>> Developer doesn't notice an older issue and starts working on the
new
> >> one
> >>>> instead of closing the new one as a Duplicate and work on the
>>
one.
>>>> There might be more, feel free to add them to this thread.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, we do that already.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, what I propose is that we don't close original issues as
Duplicate
> >>>> unless it falls into the category previously described or some
>>>> exceptions that I can't think of now and might occur.
>>>>
>>>
>>> As I mentioned, the "original" issue is less valuable both to
users
and
> to
>> devs as an identified "cause" issue, which really needs fixing.
> "Original"
>> issues still offer value to users when searching or reading release
> notes,
>> but that`s as far as it can go.
>>
>> Does this make sense?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Eduard
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Manuel
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs