[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Debian does not have customers



The Wanderer schreef op 21-09-2016 4:58:

A closed bug is presumptively a fixed bug (because bugs which have been
fixed get closed).

An open bug is presumptively a non-fixed bug.

Therefore, to close a bug which has not been fixed is to pretend that
the problem reported in that bug has been fixed, i.e., does not
currently exist.

Therefore, to close a bug which has not been fixed is to attempt to hide the problem reported in that bug, by making it appear as though that bug
has been fixed.

This is just very well put.


Russ has provided a rationale for why leaving insufficient-data bugs
open is not a good idea for many kinds of projects, and I believe for
why Debian would be one of them; I'm not sure I necessarily accept that
rationale, but it is a solid one. That doesn't invalidate the above
logic, however, only explain why it may not be able to prevail in the
circumstances which we have to live under.

In reponse to Russ also,


Metaphorically speaking, or sematically speaking, if you close something you terminate discussion about it. If you "close a chapter of a book" then it is past, it is water under the bridge. To properly redirect the bug to some other place, there would have to be a closed state that would prolongate its existence in another way, namely to direct it to a different structure or different entity that could take better care of the bug or issue.

"wontfix" and "works-for-me" are by themselves rather hostile.

Bugzilla itself (regular Bugzilla, that also uses these things) is in itself a rather hostile thing e.g. compared to Jira.

I just want to relay that I think the Wanderer is right in his or her characterisation and assessment of what a "closed bug" does to someone.

I venture on paths where bugs are closed by lazy people that just don't want to work on the bug ;-) and some of those people work for Red Hat. It is simply often used as a moral instrument instead of a technical one.

I would simply suggest that in principle you keep bugs open until it no longer exists. But that you introduce a different open state other than closed that will communicate "has been looked at, is not capable of being solved right now". This could be "pending" or "held" or "kept". Because "closed" indeed communicates "not-a-bug" or "works-for-me" or "invalid" or "fixed" and not "frozen".


Reply to: