Am Fri, 12 Mar 2010 20:22:35 -0500 schrieb Robert Howard <rjh0507@xxxxxxx>: > What do other distros do on their bugtrackers? We should allow > comments after closing to facilitate further user input. Lets not > forget that Arch Linux would not be in it's current state without > user/dev interaction. I used Gentoo for several years before I switched to Arch Linux a few years ago. On the Gentoo bug tracker I had the impression that every bug report is taken seriously. The developers are not so easily annoyed by invalid bug reports where a user just have missed an option in his system configuration, because this can happen to everyone, or hasn't enough knowledge. And the Gentoo Bugzilla isn't degenerated to a support forum. If it turns out that a bug report is just caused by a wrong configuration the developers or users who read the bug report usually just explain what is wrong and how to fix it. Or they point to the forums or the documentation and what to search for. If the reporter and the developer disagree the issue is discussed before a bug is just be closed as "won't fix". How long the discussion takes or the result of the discussion depends on the bug. In not a few cases some or many other users and developers take part on such discussions. If a developer can't reproduce a bug he usually tells it in a comment without closing the bug. A bug is usually only closed if the bug is definitely fixed or if the fix or the invalidity is confirmed by the reporter or another user who has this issue, too. If the developer couldn't reproduce the bug he usually asks for testing the fix. There are still some bugs - at least one of mine - open since several years with several duplicates. Usually these are annoying but not the most important issues. If a bug is closed at once - usually this is only done by bug wranglers, but not by developers - the bug report can easily be reopened by the reporter. And if a bug is closed too early the bug wrangler usually gives a reason for this in the comments, and the reporter can easily reply with a comment. In the cases I know, then the bug was kept open and the developer to whom it was assigned deals with it and decides what to do. Well, Gentoo has a lot more developers than Arch Linux, so Gentoo has more manpower than Arch Linux. But I bet, this could be changed on Arch. I would sum it up a bit simplified that Gentoo is more user than developer driven while Arch Linux is currently more developer than user driven. It's not that the users can't file feature requests or take part on discussions with the Arch developers. And usually the Arch developers listen to the users. But I read too many times sentences like "Arch is/was from developers for developers", "the developers only maintain, what they want", etc. And too many times some developers speak openly that they don't like Arch's growing user community. This somehow keeps the users and their needs and wishes out. Yes, I know, this is not quite right, but sometimes I have a bit the impression. The early bug closing issue is one of the reasons for this impression. Also AUR is usually seen as unofficial by the developers, because the packages are merely made by usual users. Sometimes I'd prefer if AUR would be seen as unstable but official a bit like Gentoo's sunrise overlay. Of course the AUR maintainers don't need to and shouldn't get developer or TU status just because they maintain such a package. The user/dev interaction is, btw., the engine of the whole OpenSource community. Heiko
