organize a bug triage

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

[RFC] Abstract table definitions

Can we make an acceptable behavior...

matanya

16 Aug 2012 16 Aug '12

1:17 p.m.

Hello, We didn't have a bug triage since May. I suggest organizing one in a few weeks (say 2?) I agree to take care of this if it is widely supported. How about focusing on patch triage? I mean reviewing bugs with patches attached but not in gerrit. Any other subject would be good as well. opinions? Matanya

Attachments:

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature — 900 bytes)

Show replies by date

Al Snow

16 Aug 16 Aug

3:02 p.m.

I see 3 types of bug triages: a. Up-front * Confirming bugs and assigning them to developers. * STATUS is "UNCONFIRMED", "NEW", "REOPENED"; RESOLUTION is N/A b. Verify fix * Verifying fixes (STATUS is "RESOLVED"; RESOLUTION is "FIXED") c. Accept non-fix resolution * Accepting all non-fixed resolution. * STATUS is RESOLVED; RESOLUTION is not "FIXED" (I count at least 5 non-"FIXED" RESOLUTION values) Here is a Wikimedia bug table report: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/report.cgi?y_axis_field=product&x_axis_f… the different format at the bottom of the web page. Hope this helps,Al Snow ########################################################################### Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:17:15 +0300 From: matanya(a)moses.co.il To: wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikitech-l] organize a bug triage Hello, We didn't have a bug triage since May. I suggest organizing one in a few weeks (say 2?) I agree to take care of this if it is widely supported. How about focusing on patch triage? I mean reviewing bugs with patches attached but not in gerrit. Any other subject would be good as well. opinions? Matanya _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Andre Klapper

5:21 p.m.

Hi Al, On Thu, 2012-08-16 at 11:02 -0400, Al Snow wrote:

...

I see 3 types of bug triages:

Thanks. These could be added to https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project:WikiProject_Bug_Squad/Activities Some more ideas could be to concentrate on a single module (e.g. extensions) or to update/try to reproduce issues that were reported for old versions and have not seen changes for a while (in Bugzilla's query.cgi under "Search By Change History" you can replace "Now" by e.g. "-731d" to get all tickets without any changes for the last two years). Or to update/retest the reports that you filed yourself, or.....

...

a. Up-front * Confirming bugs and assigning them to developers. * STATUS is "UNCONFIRMED", "NEW", "REOPENED"; RESOLUTION is N/A

I'd say that this normally requires knowledge which developers work on what. To me that makes it a harder task for "newbies" and might require people that have been in the community for quite a while. Just trying to clarify potential prerequisites.

...

b. Verify fix * Verifying fixes (STATUS is "RESOLVED"; RESOLUTION is "FIXED")

At least for more recent fixes this might require running (potentially unstable) code from latest git master instead of a (stable) tarball? Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong. Again, just potential prerequisites.

...

c. Accept non-fix resolution * Accepting all non-fixed resolution. * STATUS is RESOLVED; RESOLUTION is not "FIXED" (I count at least 5 non-"FIXED" RESOLUTION values)

Sorry but I don't know what you mean by "accepting" here. :/ @matanya et al: I'd highly appreciate if you could try to document how to organize a bugday for future organizers (e.g. announcement, potential problems), and maybe alongside update (or identify gaps in) the Triage Guide at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Bug_management/How_to_triage whenever needed. (But that guide is rather incomplete currently anyway.) Thanks, andre -- Andre Klapper (maemo.org bugmaster & GNOME Bugsquad) http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/

Al Snow

5:31 p.m.

Andre,

...

> c. Accept non-fix resolution > * Accepting all non-fixed resolution. > * STATUS is RESOLVED; RESOLUTION is not "FIXED" (I count at least 5 non-"FIXED" RESOLUTION values)

...

Sorry but I don't know what you mean by "accepting" here. :/

When I look at the non-"FIXED" RESOLUTIONs that I know about (INVALID, WONTFIX, LATER, DUPLICATE, and WORKSFORME), the next step is to REOPEN it or accept the resolution and change status to VERIFIED. Here is a chart with these RESOLUTIONS: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/reports.cgi?product=Wikimedia&banner=1&a… Thanks for the question, Al Snow > From: andre_klapper(a)gmx.net > To: wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 19:21:12 +0200 > Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] organize a bug triage > > Hi Al, > > On Thu, 2012-08-16 at 11:02 -0400, Al Snow wrote: > > I see 3 types of bug triages: > > Thanks. These could be added to > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project:WikiProject_Bug_Squad/Activities > > Some more ideas could be to concentrate on a single module (e.g. > extensions) or to update/try to reproduce issues that were reported for > old versions and have not seen changes for a while (in Bugzilla's > query.cgi under "Search By Change History" you can replace "Now" by e.g. > "-731d" to get all tickets without any changes for the last two years). > Or to update/retest the reports that you filed yourself, or..... > > > a. Up-front > > * Confirming bugs and assigning them to developers. > > * STATUS is "UNCONFIRMED", "NEW", "REOPENED"; RESOLUTION is N/A > > I'd say that this normally requires knowledge which developers work on > what. To me that makes it a harder task for "newbies" and might require > people that have been in the community for quite a while. > Just trying to clarify potential prerequisites. > > > b. Verify fix > > * Verifying fixes (STATUS is "RESOLVED"; RESOLUTION is "FIXED") > > At least for more recent fixes this might require running (potentially > unstable) code from latest git master instead of a (stable) tarball? > Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong. > Again, just potential prerequisites. > > > c. Accept non-fix resolution > > * Accepting all non-fixed resolution. > > * STATUS is RESOLVED; RESOLUTION is not "FIXED" (I count at least 5 non-"FIXED" RESOLUTION values) >

...

Sorry but I don't know what you mean by "accepting" here. :/

> > @matanya et al: > I'd highly appreciate if you could try to document how to organize a > bugday for future organizers (e.g. announcement, potential problems), > and maybe alongside update (or identify gaps in) the Triage Guide at > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Bug_management/How_to_triage whenever > needed. (But that guide is rather incomplete currently anyway.) > > Thanks, > andre > -- > Andre Klapper (maemo.org bugmaster & GNOME Bugsquad) > http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/ > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Andre Klapper

5:52 p.m.

Hi Al, [Expectations, workflows and manpower among FOSS projects differ so please take my comments with a grain of salt as I don't follow the Wikimedia project that closely.] On Thu, 2012-08-16 at 13:31 -0400, Al Snow wrote:

...

> c. Accept non-fix resolution > * Accepting all non-fixed resolution. > * STATUS is RESOLVED; RESOLUTION is not "FIXED" (I count at least 5 non-"FIXED" RESOLUTION values)

Sorry but I don't know what you mean by "accepting" here. :/

...or to just leave a report as it is? :) REOPENing normally happens if the reporter, developer or another party interested in fixing the issue realizes that a committed fix did not fix the issue, or to signal disagreement. I'm not convinced if triagers can help here to save any of those persons some time. Also I don't really see who it helps to verify RESOLVED DUPLICATE. Personally I rather consider it a waste of time (anybody is free to disagree of course) as efforts are better spent on general triaging like identifying duplicates etc. which seems to be a bigger help for users and developers. For the other four options I normally leave it to the reporter. For example verifying a WONTFIX (=stating for a second time that the request will not receive a fix) might make a reporter feel less acknowledged for spending time on reporting a bug or request. andre PS: For anybody _really_ interested in discussing the use of the VERIFIED status in Bugzilla I recommend a recent thread on the Mozilla dev-platform/dev-quality mailing lists at https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/mozilla.dev.platform/gn9… -- Andre Klapper (maemo.org bugmaster & GNOME Bugsquad) http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/

Chad

6:01 p.m.

Triaging already closed bugs seems like a huge waste of time when there's so many open bugs that need love. -Chad On Aug 16, 2012 1:53 PM, "Andre Klapper" <andre_klapper(a)gmx.net> wrote:

...

> > c. Accept non-fix resolution > > * Accepting all non-fixed resolution. > > * STATUS is RESOLVED; RESOLUTION is not "FIXED" (I count at least 5

non-"FIXED" RESOLUTION values)

Sorry but I don't know what you mean by "accepting" here. :/

Al Snow

6:19 p.m.

Thanks Chad and Andre for your responses. I am new to the community and did not know that RESOLVED bugs were considered CLOSED. Thanks for the update. Al Snow

...

Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:01:33 -0400 From: innocentkiller(a)gmail.com To: wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] organize a bug triage Triaging already closed bugs seems like a huge waste of time when there's so many open bugs that need love. -Chad On Aug 16, 2012 1:53 PM, "Andre Klapper" <andre_klapper(a)gmx.net> wrote: > Hi Al, > > [Expectations, workflows and manpower among FOSS projects differ so > please take my comments with a grain of salt as I don't follow the > Wikimedia project that closely.] > > On Thu, 2012-08-16 at 13:31 -0400, Al Snow wrote: > > > > c. Accept non-fix resolution > > > > * Accepting all non-fixed resolution. > > > > * STATUS is RESOLVED; RESOLUTION is not "FIXED" (I count at least 5 > non-"FIXED" RESOLUTION values) > > > > > Sorry but I don't know what you mean by "accepting" here. :/ > > When I look at the non-"FIXED" RESOLUTIONs that I know about (INVALID, > > WONTFIX, LATER, DUPLICATE, and WORKSFORME), the next step is to REOPEN > > it or accept the resolution and change status to VERIFIED. > > ...or to just leave a report as it is? :) > > REOPENing normally happens if the reporter, developer or another party > interested in fixing the issue realizes that a committed fix did not fix > the issue, or to signal disagreement. I'm not convinced if triagers can > help here to save any of those persons some time. > > Also I don't really see who it helps to verify RESOLVED DUPLICATE. > Personally I rather consider it a waste of time (anybody is free to > disagree of course) as efforts are better spent on general triaging like > identifying duplicates etc. which seems to be a bigger help for users > and developers. > > For the other four options I normally leave it to the reporter. For > example verifying a WONTFIX (=stating for a second time that the request > will not receive a fix) might make a reporter feel less acknowledged for > spending time on reporting a bug or request. > > andre > > PS: For anybody _really_ interested in discussing the use of the > VERIFIED status in Bugzilla I recommend a recent thread on the Mozilla > dev-platform/dev-quality mailing lists at > > https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/mozilla.dev.platform/gn9… > > -- > Andre Klapper (maemo.org bugmaster & GNOME Bugsquad) > http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/

Mark A. Hershberger

18 Aug 18 Aug

3:31 p.m.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 08/16/2012 09:17 AM, matanya wrote:

...

We didn't have a bug triage since May. I suggest organizing one in a few weeks (say 2?)

Wow! Thanks for taking this on! I'm busy with non-MW work, but I do have some time to help out. Please CC me personally on any triage announcements or ping me on IRC (hexmode). Thanks! - -- http://hexmode.com/ Human evil is not a problem. It is a mystery. It cannot be solved. -- When Atheism Becomes a Religion, Chris Hedges

...PGP SIGNATURE...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iD8DBQFQL7VXc17xCi38v/URAsV7AKCiYFvnnIfSu8sU+/OvVxnboWQWWwCghdMy JpR0it7vfHlOOfr8OX5VbF8= =iBFq -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Tyler Romeo

19 Aug 19 Aug

5:42 a.m.

I think this is a great idea, but I also have a new idea for how we might go about using the RESOLVED -> VERIFIED -> CLOSED workflow in BugZilla, rather than just treating resolved as closed. One thing I noticed about MW is that we're very much lacking in the test planning area. What if a bug is marked as verified if either a) somebody makes and commits a test case for it or b) it is determined that a test case is not applicable. That way we'll have automated tests ensuring every bug we fix doesn't come back again. Any thoughts? *--* *Tyler Romeo* Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2015 Major in Computer Science www.whizkidztech.com | tylerromeo(a)gmail.com On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 11:31 AM, Mark A. Hershberger <mah(a)everybody.org>wrote;wrote:

...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 08/16/2012 09:17 AM, matanya wrote:

We didn't have a bug triage since May. I suggest organizing one in a few weeks (say 2?)

...PGP SIGNATURE...

_______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Andre Klapper

11:23 a.m.

On Sun, 2012-08-19 at 01:42 -0400, Tyler Romeo wrote:

...

I fail to see a strong relation with the VERIFIED status. One could also argue in favor of writing a testcase together with writing the fix for a specific bug report (so relating it to RESOLVED FIXED instead). But this is getting off-topic for the "bug triage" subject anyway. :) andre -- Andre Klapper (maemo.org bugmaster & GNOME Bugsquad) http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/

4269

days inactive

4272

days old

wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

9 comments

6 participants

tags (0)

participants (6)

Al Snow
Andre Klapper
Chad
Mark A. Hershberger
matanya
Tyler Romeo