-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Arjan van de Ven wrote: >>>Ignoring the bug reports doesn't motivate testers very much... >> >>No one sane is going to suggest that there is enough skilled manpower >>right now to follow up on each individual bugreport AND get things >>actually fixed. But I don't think its fair to say that people are >>actively ignoring bug reports. Let's talk numbers. >>I get a total of 1602 bug against fc3t1-3 >>i get a total of 320 assigned/new/reopened against fc3t1-3 >> >>Those numbers don't tell me that developers are trying to ignore >>anyone, those numbers tell me the system is overwhelmed. > > > > as someone who has been on the receiving end of bugs until a few months > ago I can say that we don't ignore bugs. *HOWEVER* bugs do have various > priorities. And that's not always the priority the reporter thinks it > is. "OH MY GOD THEY BROKE MY WEIRDASS ISA SOUND CARD" may well be very > important for you (you don't get to enjoy your mp3^Wogg collection) but > it's a defect that would hit maybe 0.00005% of the users, and as such > for the other end of the bugreport isn't too important compared to the > other bugs. I can imagine you saying "then close it wontfix then I know > where I am". Well. Funny you say that ;-). If I do that as developer to > 100 bugs, the result will 40 hate mails describing the assumed > profession of my mother, 30 reopens with "but this IS important and you > are a jerk to think it's not" and a lot of hassle. After some time, I > can tell you, you just don't do that anymore and leave the bugs dangling > instead. Understood and justified IMO. I would like to think most of the people submitting the bugs are just looking for some sort of feedback that justifies the time and trouble they took to file the bug and more importantly motivate them to help find and fix future ones. A since of involvement and (heard) voice is what makes community driven project work IMO (look at the crazy wikipedians). All they need is a little feedback to let them know they arent being ignored. Perhaps a "reviewed" status would appease those users and a *very* short comment on why it will/wont be addressed in the near future (eg. bigger fish, time, specificity). The "verified" flag gets at this idea of "recognition" to some degree but it also affirms the bug's existence/validity which isnt always possible, desired or timely. As a side note this page doesnt mention "Verified" as a status, only as a valid transition from "new": https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/page.cgi?id=bug_status.html#status - -- Michael Favia michael.favia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Insites Incorporated http://michael.insitesinc.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32) iD8DBQFCZ+1fBVsNYjF2rDYRAhqtAJwI/vgbQf4+Q21601Z/+q3Gted4dgCeNxkQ Nx2tBIlk7adycRdA2YnF3zI= =Stjf -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
