Re: What bug reports are for
Hi, Russ:
En fecha Martes, 1 de Marzo de 2011, Russ Allbery escribió:
> "Jesús M. Navarro" <jesus.navarro@undominio.net> writes:
> > I think I'll go here into troubled waters but It's my opinion (as
> > somebody that has worked implementing and policying issue tracking
> > systems, so I think it's an informed opinion, but just an opinion
> > nevertheless) that there's no thing such too long a bug list.
>
> I completely disagree. And that's also an informed opinion. :)
>
> > What it usually happens (at least in my experience) is that too long a
> > bug list hurts the ego of the one that think of himself as being
> > responsible for that so we, being humans the way we are, feel a strong
> > inclination to "resolve" it by whatever means we find and being an easy
> > scape path sweeping them under the carpet, that's what we'll do.
>
> You've basically said here that everyone who disagrees with you on what
> methods are practically effective in bug management is just suffering from
> a bruised ego. This comes across as condescending rather than as a
> foundation for a useful discussion.
If that's what I said, then take it for deleted.
What I *tried* to say, is that I've been there, I've felt my ego hurted, and
after lenghty conversations with those working under my responsibility more
times than not that was the case too. And after assesing that as the main
problem we were able to find ways for better issue management both for those
filling the issues and those having to deal with them.
> I pointed out in my previous message some of the practical problems with
> leaving all the type 3 bugs active in the BTS
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) 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).
> , and in previous threads on
> this topic others have pointed similar issues in considerably more depth.
Well, I'll have to re-read those threads then since that's not what I can
remember of them right now.
Reply to: