26 Sep
2016
26 Sep
'16
10:39 a.m.
2016-09-23 12:57 GMT+02:00 Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net>et>:
the
to
--
Guillaume Delhumeau (guillaume.delhumeau(a)xwiki.com)
Research & Development Engineer at XWiki SAS
Committer on the XWiki.org project
I agree with Edy’s answer.
However, what Manuel is also saying (I think), is that by doing so, we
don’t reward the reporter and we don’t incitate him/her to report more.
Basically he’s found the problem and we’re saying that he just found a
duplicate (this is what someone looking at JIRA without doing archeology on
the activity of the issues will think).
I don’t have the solution though.
In general, saying "thanks you" seems to be good practice :) It's good for
issues, pull requests, etc... In this particular case, we could simply say:
"Thanks to this report, we have found the cause of this problem which is
described in the issue ISSUE-1. As a consequence, we have closed this
current issue as a duplicate of ISSUE-1."
Any idea?
Thanks
-Vincent
I agree with the reasoning of Edy about "causes" and "manifestations".
It's
already the way I am handling issues too. However, I have noticed a little
problem.
The issues closed as duplicates are never mentioned in the release notes.
It's because we don't set the "fix version" field for these issues. It
makes sense because we don't always know when the "cause" will be closed,
and it would be a pain to synchronize everything afterwards.
But it means that a user, who have experienced a bug but haven't followed
the jira issue, won't see in the release notes that her bug is solved.
Instead, she will see the "cause" bug without seeing its link to the
manifestation, except by manually browsing jira.
So it is a question of visibility. By reading the list of the issues, we
miss all the bugs that we consider as manifestations of an other one.
What do you think about this?
Thanks,
On 23 Sep 2016, at 12:46, 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 issue
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 the
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 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 many)
of
its manifestations so that, when a user (or even
a dev) does a search
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).
If we were to modify the manifestation issue or simply add a comment, we
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 mark
the
manifestation issue as a duplicate of the
"cause" issue, which makes
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 which 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 closed as
> 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 older 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 other
exceptions that I can't think of now and might occur.
As I mentioned, the "original" issue is less valuable both to users and 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
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
Thanks,
Manuel
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs