Re: Mantis package bombs

On Sun, Aug 26, 2007 at 04:50:17PM -0400, Todd Zullinger wrote:
Charles Curley wrote:
On Sun, Aug 26, 2007 at 02:35:01PM -0400, Todd Zullinger wrote:

I don't know the details of the reports Aaron was talking about. He
did say that there was a lengthy exchange asking for info, which leads
me to believe that the maintainer tried to get the needed info.

But yes, I agree that bug reports should be acknowledged and closed
with some reason, even it's "can't reproduce" or something.

Fair enough.

You and Rahul seem to want to make things as easy as possible for
the maintainers. I think that's a fine idea. But it's a two way
street: the maintainers can acknowledged reports, work with the
reporters, and resolve the bugs. A "Won't fix" with an explanation
of why is better than leaving it hanging.

Of course. I hope I didn't give the impression that reports should be
ignored. What I do think it worth noting is the sheer number of
reports and the limit on hours per day. Most maintainers aren't paid
to work on Fedora packages, so it seems quite reasonable to expect
that a user wanting a bug fixed be patient and understanding if their
bug doesn't get the attention they would like.

I only recently started to maintain a few packages so I don't have
piles of bug reports to deal with as some maintainers do.

I have had such piles, although not with Fedora. My advice: learn how
to triage them, and how to move them along. Do not get behind; it will
kill you. It's also rude to the reporter.

I certainly intend to reply to every bug report that is filed on any
of my packages,

I appreciate that; I hope the good intentions last. As you are a
volunteer (so I take it), don't take on more than you can chew, and
leave yourself some slack. That's advice I've been giving volunteers
and paid employees for damn near half a century now, and its good

but I know that other maintainers with heavier workloads may
not be able to do that. What can really help in those cases are
volunteers to do some triaging of bugs to weed out duplicates and ask
for more info from reports that lack enough detail to enable proper

OK, I've worked as a paid professional on the receiving end of bug
systems similar to bugzilla. Sorry, but from that experience I'm
skeptical of the bug zappers. I think it is part of the maintainer's
job to do that stuff. I'm glad to see it proposed and I hope it
prospers. The work definitely needs to be done!

Is there a document anywhere that details what a maintainer should
expect from bugzilla and reporters, how to go about using the system,
etc. For example, a document that gives circumstances under which one
would mark a bug as "will not fix", and steps to take prior to doing
so. An ops manual, if you will, for bugzilla?

Yeah, I know: this is FOSS: Read the Source.

Basically, since this is a mostly volunteer effort, I get a little
defensive when anyone has too many expectations from the volunteers.
(I'm not saying that you do, so please don't take that personally. :)

Understandable, and not taken personally.


Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL:
Things in our country run in spite of government, not by aid of it.
-- Will Rogers

fedora-list mailing list
To unsubscribe:


Charles Curley /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign
Looking for fine software \ / Respect for open standards
and/or writing? X No HTML/RTF in email / \ No M$ Word docs in email

Key fingerprint = CE5C 6645 A45A 64E4 94C0 809C FFF6 4C48 4ECD DFDB

Attachment: pgpfFExs6EZKt.pgp
Description: PGP signature

fedora-list mailing list
To unsubscribe: