Re: What bug reports are for
"Jesús M. Navarro" <jesus.navarro@undominio.net> writes:
> No, you didn't (not at least that I managed to understand as such).
> What you did was telling what happened (that #3 bugs tend to cost too
> much time for too short a benefit, a thing the bug triager is only able
> to know after the fact, or else he could simply let it be untouched)
That wasn't the part that I was referring to; that's a different part of
the analysis. (However, I believe you're wrong in your contention that a
bug triager can only estimate the work/benefit ratio after studying the
bug in depth.)
> and telling that longer opened bug lists take more overhead to deal with
> (which is not something my experience can relate to -not at least in any
> significant manner).
Your experience doesn't match the experience of many other people who have
posted to these threads. I think you're going to have to show us the
details of what we're doing wrong. :)
I also mentioned the affect of long bug lists on increased duplicate bug
filings via reportbug, which I've noticed and which can have significant
impact (particularly on the annoyance factor of duplicate bugs).
There was rather extensive discussion earlier with lots more examples in
one of the other threads (we've had lots) about this topic. I thought you
were also participating them, but I could be misremembering.
Some of these may be technical issues with the BTS that could be
resolvable by making it easier to stick bugs into an easily-ignored
bucket, but one of the points that has been raised in the past is that
it's very unclear to many of us that sticking bugs into a bucket that, in
practice, guarantees no one will look at them within the next five years
is actually doing our users any favors over simply closing the bug.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: