[xwiki-devs] [Proposal] New Best Practice for closing issues as Duplicate
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. 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. 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. Thanks, Manuel
Hi, Manuel, On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Manuel Smeria <[email protected]> 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 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 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 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 [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
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. Any idea? Thanks -Vincent
On 23 Sep 2016, at 12:46, Eduard Moraru <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi, Manuel,
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Manuel Smeria <[email protected]> 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 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 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 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 [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
Hi, On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
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.
I`m not sure. I understand what you`re saying, but I`m wondering if this is not a problem of perspective. 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).
That would be totally superficial, IMO. It is easy to look at the dates when the issue was reported and see that, even if it is marked as a duplicate, it was clearly reported before the real "cause" was found (like we have in our current case). Nobody is taking any credit from the reporter in any way. The reality of things is that the reported has reported a manifestation which eventually lead to finding the cause. Looking at it just by whose name is on the issue marked with Fixed does not really tell you much. Yes, this can impact reports or dashboards, but those reports can never reflect what actually goes on in practice and if you are really interested in that information, it`s very easy to trace it all the way (i.e. do "archeology" :) ). Make no mistake, we *do* appreciate every reported issue and we *do* need more help on pointing us to places where our code does not do what it is supposed to. We`ll eventually figure out the cause of the problem, we don`t expect anyone to point us to that directly. That would spoil all the fun :) Thanks, Eduard
I don’t have the solution though.
Any idea?
Thanks -Vincent
On 23 Sep 2016, at 12:46, Eduard Moraru <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi, Manuel,
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Manuel Smeria <[email protected]> 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 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 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 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 [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
2016-09-23 12:57 GMT+02:00 Vincent Massol <[email protected]>:
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 <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi, Manuel,
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Manuel Smeria <[email protected]> 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 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 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 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 [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Guillaume Delhumeau ([email protected]) Research & Development Engineer at XWiki SAS Committer on the XWiki.org project
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Guillaume Delhumeau < [email protected]> wrote:
2016-09-23 12:57 GMT+02:00 Vincent Massol <[email protected]>:
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?
Sounds interesting, but it would only make sense, IMO, if we can automate it, i.e. when updating the Fixed Version property of an issue, also update it for all its duplicates, so that they are always in synch. We could probably write some quick listener component/script to take care of this, since on a quick Google search, the question does appear, but not a clear result other than custom code. Thanks, Eduard
Thanks,
On 23 Sep 2016, at 12:46, Eduard Moraru <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi, Manuel,
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Manuel Smeria <[email protected]> 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 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 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 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 [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Guillaume Delhumeau ([email protected]) Research & Development Engineer at XWiki SAS Committer on the XWiki.org project _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
2016-09-26 11:55 GMT+02:00 Eduard Moraru <[email protected]>:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Guillaume Delhumeau < [email protected]> wrote:
2016-09-23 12:57 GMT+02:00 Vincent Massol <[email protected]>:
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?
Sounds interesting, but it would only make sense, IMO, if we can automate it, i.e. when updating the Fixed Version property of an issue, also update it for all its duplicates, so that they are always in synch. We could probably write some quick listener component/script to take care of this, since on a quick Google search, the question does appear, but not a clear result other than custom code.
That's an interesting lead.
Thanks, Eduard
Thanks,
On 23 Sep 2016, at 12:46, Eduard Moraru <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hi, Manuel,
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Manuel Smeria <[email protected]>
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 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 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 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 [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Guillaume Delhumeau ([email protected]) Research & Development Engineer at XWiki SAS Committer on the XWiki.org project _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Guillaume Delhumeau ([email protected]) Research & Development Engineer at XWiki SAS Committer on the XWiki.org project
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Eduard Moraru <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi, Manuel,
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Manuel Smeria <[email protected]> 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 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 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).
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 finds 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 how the users are affected. The developer can look for details (like the cause of the problem) in the comments. Thanks, Marius
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 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 [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
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, he can rephrase it using technical words inside the Git commit or even inside a Jira comment. AFAIK the search function in Jira also works for comments. Thanks, Manuel On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 9:28 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea < [email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Eduard Moraru <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi, Manuel,
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Manuel Smeria <[email protected]> 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 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 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).
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 finds 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 how the users are affected. The developer can look for details (like the cause of the problem) in the comments.
Thanks, Marius
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 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 [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
On 27 Sep 2016, at 11:38, Manuel Smeria <[email protected]> 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, he can rephrase it using technical words inside the Git commit or even inside a 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 sync 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 looking 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 < [email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Eduard Moraru <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi, Manuel,
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Manuel Smeria <[email protected]> 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 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 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).
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 finds 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 how the users are affected. The developer can look for details (like the cause of the problem) in the comments.
Thanks, Marius
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 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
Hello, Yes, don't change the title. For example let's take http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-13468 The title for it is "The query used by the Document Tree to get the nested child pages is very costly".
From my pov it could have easily been "Document Tree is very slow when expanding children nodes" if I would have reported it. I also think it wouldn't have made a difference whether the title was technical or not, since the fix would be the same.
It's only a matter of the person that is reporting the issue, whether he's seeing the issue as a Developer or not, but the issue is the same one. There are not 2 issues, so it doesn't make sense to create another issue just to close it later as Duplicate. Thanks, Manuel On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
On 27 Sep 2016, at 11:38, Manuel Smeria <[email protected]> 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, he can rephrase it using technical words inside the Git commit or even inside a 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 sync 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 looking 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 < [email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Eduard Moraru <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi, Manuel,
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Manuel Smeria <[email protected]> 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 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 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).
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 finds 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 how the users are affected. The developer can look for details (like the cause of the problem) in the comments.
Thanks, Marius
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 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 [email protected] 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 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 27 Sep 2016, at 11:38, Manuel Smeria <[email protected]> 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, he can rephrase it using technical words inside the Git commit or even inside a 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 sync 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 looking 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 < [email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Eduard Moraru <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi, Manuel,
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Manuel Smeria <[email protected]> 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 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 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).
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 finds 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 how the users are affected. The developer can look for details (like the cause of the problem) in the comments.
Thanks, Marius
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 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 [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
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_wha... https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Screening_duplicate_bugs#Which_is_t... 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) < [email protected]> wrote:
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 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 27 Sep 2016, at 11:38, Manuel Smeria <[email protected]> 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, he can rephrase it using technical words inside the Git commit or even inside a 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 sync 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 looking 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 < [email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Eduard Moraru <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi, Manuel,
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Manuel Smeria <[email protected]> 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 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 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).
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 finds 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 how the users are affected. The developer can look for details (like the cause of the problem) in the comments.
Thanks, Marius
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 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 [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
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_wha... On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Manuel Smeria <[email protected]> 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) < [email protected]> wrote:
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 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 27 Sep 2016, at 11:38, Manuel Smeria <[email protected]> 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, he can rephrase it using technical words inside the Git commit or even inside a 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 sync 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 looking 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 < [email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Eduard Moraru < [email protected]> wrote:
Hi, Manuel,
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Manuel Smeria <[email protected]> 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 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 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).
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 finds 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 how the users are affected. The developer can look for details (like the cause of the problem) in the comments.
Thanks, Marius
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 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 [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
On 25 Jan 2017, at 14:04, Eduard Moraru <[email protected]> wrote:
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.).”
Yes we could simply link to that page in our best practice, i.e. link it from somewhere in http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/DevelopmentPractices -Vincent
Thanks, Eduard
---------- [1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Bugzilla/What_to_do_and_wha...
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Manuel Smeria <[email protected]> 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) < [email protected]> wrote:
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 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 27 Sep 2016, at 11:38, Manuel Smeria <[email protected]> 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, he can rephrase it using technical words inside the Git commit or even inside a 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 sync 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 looking 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 < [email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Eduard Moraru < [email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, Manuel, > > On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Manuel Smeria <[email protected]> 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 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 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). >
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 finds 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 how the users are affected. The developer can look for details (like the cause of the problem) in the comments.
Thanks, Marius
> > 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 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 [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
Hi Manuel,
On 25 Jan 2017, at 13:07, Manuel Smeria <[email protected]> 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_wha... https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Screening_duplicate_bugs#Which_is_t...
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?
That sounds fine to me as a guideline/best practice. Of course we might still make mistake but we can fix them. Even for XWIKI-13728 if you care strongly, we could still swap the fixed/duplicate (even though the commit is done against one issue). Thanks -Vincent
Thanks, Manuel
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) < [email protected]> wrote:
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 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 27 Sep 2016, at 11:38, Manuel Smeria <[email protected]> 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, he can rephrase it using technical words inside the Git commit or even inside a 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 sync 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 looking 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 < [email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Eduard Moraru <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi, Manuel,
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Manuel Smeria <[email protected]> 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 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 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).
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 finds 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 how the users are affected. The developer can look for details (like the cause of the problem) in the comments.
Thanks, Marius
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 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
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Manuel Smeria <[email protected]> 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)
Said differently: Does it make sense to close the "cause" as a duplicate of one specific "manifestation" (e.g. occurring in application A), and all the other various manifestations (in applications B, C or D) as duplicate of that particular "manifestation" (from application A), just because it was reported in application A first? I would say no. 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.
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.
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.
Thanks, Manuel
Another thing worth mentioning is that in this particular case that you`ve mentioned, I`ve created the issue because I was not able to handle it on the spot and I considered the problem to be of enough importance to deserve its own issue (and thus gather visibility). In practice, when the dev addresses the reported manifestation on the spot, the fix can easily be committed directly on the manifestation issue itself, without needing to create a separate "cause" issue. We don`t really have a practice to handle things this way (i.e. always create a "cause" issue), probably also to avoid artificially increasing the number of issues and also to keep formalities low. However, if we do end up having the cause issue (which in this case we do, due to the reason I mentioned), I would see it more reasonable to mark the manifestation as the duplicate of the cause. Thanks, Eduard _______________________________________________
devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
Manuel Smeria wrote:
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. To me it makes a lot of sense to close the bug together with its manifestations.
Even better for the quality: once the developer issue is closed, the manifestation creators are asked to revalidate their manifestation and close it themselves. I agree this breaks the issue-counts... Paul
On 23 Sep 2016, at 13:00, Paul Libbrecht <[email protected]> wrote:
Manuel Smeria wrote:
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. To me it makes a lot of sense to close the bug together with its manifestations.
Even better for the quality: once the developer issue is closed, the manifestation creators are asked to revalidate their manifestation and close it themselves.
I agree this breaks the issue-counts…
And the release notes when you generate them from JIRA. -Vincent
Paul
participants (7)
-
Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) -
Eduard Moraru -
Guillaume Delhumeau -
Manuel Smeria -
Marius Dumitru Florea -
Paul Libbrecht -
Vincent Massol