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

Bug#437344: does moreinfo tag now means Iwontsupportthisversion ? [Was Re: Bug#437344: seemingly random SATA disk lockup with ICH5: amazing way to ask for more info on the BTS]



Le vendredi 14 septembre 2007, maximilian attems a écrit :
> any unstable kernel installs just fine on testing.
>
> woow instead of loosing blabla time a simple upgrade could have
> been done long ago. i told you the reality 2.6.21 is _not_ supported.
> it is also certainly not the version with which Lenny or any d-i
> will be released.
>
> so your report is missing vital info.

Obviously you missed Luk when he said
>>The version specified is the version in testing...

If you had read the 4th line of my bug report, you would knew that this bug 
occurs also with other kernel versions (2.6.15, 2.6.18...) and then you 
would, maybe, have been able to be a little bit useful by providing more 
useful guidance than telling "use [one more] another version".

I'll loose the blabla time and the bug reporting time. It would surely have 
taken less time to install a new kernel than trying to communicate with you: 
but I would have to do this each time a new version is released while no one 
would still have read a single line of my initial report and will no warantee 
that someone will read complementary info posted afterwards.

To sum up, you are simply diverting the BTS "moreinfo" tags into 
a "Iwontsupportthisversionincludedintesting" which I really doubt it was 
meant for. 

And I think the CC to debian-devel is justified, in this case, because we are 
not talking about the bug, but about the way you handle bugs.

Apparently, you decided that for the kernel linux, quite an important piece of 
software, it was ok to:

	"Tag any bug that is against an old version with moreinfo in the ping mail. 				
	Gives the submitter a clear indication that this bug needs an update."

(From your blog http://www.itp.tuwien.ac.at/~mattems/blog/ )

while Debian BTS states that moreinfo tag means:
	
	"This bug can't be addressed until more information is provided by the 			
	submitter. The bug will be closed if the submitter doesn't provide more 			
	information in a reasonable (few months) timeframe. This is for bugs like It 
	doesn't work. What doesn't work?"

(From http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#tags )

Do you really feel it is ok to consider that the fact that the submitter have 
not tried every new version of the package means "This bug can't be addressed 
until more information is provided". Do you really feel the fact a user have 
not tried every new version while giving plenty of details of what precisely 
does not work is like a bug report saying "it does not work" without saying 
what exactly? Do you really feel it means it is okey to close such reports 
that you have not read just because the submitter failed to reply to a ping?

Considering how central is linux in a GNU/Linux operating system, it cannot be 
harmless to follow such bugs management policy. So I would be interested to 
know if such policy is endorsed by debian developers in general. If so, then 
please update the BTS docs about the tags so bugs submitter knows easily that 
their reports will easily go to limbo unread.

In the meantime, I'll pray and hope upstream maintainers of linux will fix 
this annoying bug.


-- 
Mathieu Roy





Reply to: