closing older bug reports without looking = bad practice ?

[Jason Montleon]

I don't like the idea of saying a bug is UNCONFIRMED and ignoring it.  So, 
you mean to say that my clean install of FC5T2 and FC5T3 where the default 
configuration for sound works with the stock kernel, but not with the xen 
kernel is imaginary?  Whatever the cause, I can confirm that the bug exists 
on my hardware (Dell Inspiron 8000 with A23 (most current) BIOS.)

If the developer/triage never gets his hands on similar hardware, does that 
bug just stay unconfirmed and ignored indefinately?  That doesn't seem 
practical, especially in bugs related to hardware.  It is a little easier 
for openoffice to do this because there shouldn't be as many hardware 
related problems.  If the bug exists only on Fedora, the developer can 
install Fedora or go to a system with Fedora and confirm the problem.  May 
take his time to install it, but he will not need to purchase the hardware.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Marius Andreiana" <mandreiana.lists at gmail.com>
To: "fedora-test" <fedora-test-list at redhat.com>; "fedora-devel" 
<fedora-devel-list at redhat.com>; <sundaram at redhat.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 4:27 AM
Subject: closing older bug reports without looking = bad practice ?


> Hi all,
>
> I've got a bunch of notices with FC5 test1 and test2 bugs being closed
> as there have been a lot of updates meanwhile. For me, as a tester which
> monitors some of the bugs and find some time once in a weekend to do
> some triage, this seemed plain rude.
>
> If there are too many bugs overwhelming developers then the cause should
> be addressed (better code with fewer bugs, which means more resources
> devoted to coding which are unavailable now) or find alternative
> solutions, where fedora testers could help. Closing all the reported
> bugs won't make them go away, but will make testers go away. With the
> current bugzilla setup, the number of reported bugs would have decreased
> as more testers do triage and see if they are still valid in rawhide, or
> they could confirm it until a developer finally looks at it, or the
> reporter might update it with new info.
> A practice from openoffice bugzilla could be borrowed - bugs reported by
> usual bugzilla acounts are by default UNCONFIRMED, and only fedora
> testers can set them to NEW. If there are too many bugs, a developer
> could ignore UNCONFIRMED ones.
>
> I also noticed Dave closes kernel bugs with each kernel release, asking
> people to retest. While this might save developers time, it could also
> leave real bugs closed as reporter might get tired of re-confirming a
> bug for 3 times.
> Take for example this bug:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174968
> In FC5test1, looks like the bttv driver had some problems, causing
> tvtuners to stop working. A few updates later, it worked again. The
> causes for not working and working again are unknown, therefore it could
> happen on every new release. Just cross fingers and hope for the best!
>
> To conclude, please don't close bug reports without researching them
> first. If Red Hat staff doesn't have time for it, please ask for triage
> help on fedora-test list, even with weekly themes, such as GNOME triage
> week (including searching for upstream bugs), kernel week etc - just
> post the link to the bugzilla query for all the required components.
>
> Thanks and looking forward for a better FC5 release!
> -- 
> Marius Andreiana
>
> -- 
> fedora-test-list mailing list
> fedora-test-list at redhat.com
> To unsubscribe:
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
>