Re: Blockerbugs discussion tickets feedback 🐞💬

[Kamil Paral <kparal@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 6:14 PM Adam Williamson <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Thu, 2020-11-19 at 14:41 +0100, Kamil Paral wrote:
>
> People often add a hyperlink to the criterion in question (not using Adam's
> anchors, just ToC links, but that's fine) to a Bugzilla comment. At least I
> do it almost always (when I know which criterion to use, sometimes I
> don't). But I'm not sure how it helps. We can't enforce it (we don't want
> to prevent people from proposing blockers just because they don't know
> which exact criterion applies). The BBA proposal form is used only
> sometimes, many people propose it directly through Bugzilla, which is a
> free-form text field. And even the criterion that gets cited originally is
> often not considered the appropriate one. So if you want to vote, you still
> need to read the whole discussion (not necessarily the technical bugzilla
> discussion, but certainly the blocker discussion in our blocker-review
> Pagure repo, and at least the comment in Bugzilla which nominated the bug).

An ugly hack would just be to catch any time a comment on the bug links
to a criteria page with a URL fragment, mirror that link as a comment
on the issue with generic framing text, like this:

===

blockerbot commented a minute ago

Release criterion mentioned in bug report by kparal:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_33_Beta_Release_Criteria#Remote_package_sources

===

If such a link is included in the bug report at the time blockerbot
creates the issue, it could be incorporated into the initial issue
description.

Right. But my understanding was that Kevin would like to see "this bug is being considered against criterion X", where X is an up-to-date information, and not something that someone mentioned in the past and might not be valid. I would be also worried that people would tend to look at that ticket description and vote, instead of reading the discussion whole and perhaps find that a completely different criterion was named as much more suitable.

But really, I think this is a hopeless topic, because I feel like I'm one of the very few who actually provide the criterion links in Bugzilla (and then I also link to that particular bugzilla comment when adding my vote to the Pagure ticket). More often than not I see the criterion copy-pasted, but without a link. So even if we wanted to highlight the original proposed criterion (not the actual one which we figured out in the discussion), it would work just sometimes. And even in those cases, I'm worried that it would support people in voting without reading the full discussion (properly).

I'd much rather see something like:

====

Bug details: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875677

The bug seems to have been proposed as a blocker/freeze exception in [comment 13](https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875677#c13).

====

That makes it easier to find the blocker/FE proposal with the justification and everything (including sometimes the criterion). I'm just not sure it's worth the effort, because usually it's not that difficult to find it manually with Ctrl+F. And of course the implementation would get messy once there are multiple and not just one proposal, the bug is reopened from a previous release cycle, etc.

_______________________________________________
test mailing list -- test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to test-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx