On 21 May 1999, John Goerzen wrote:
> Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > No one needs to take on that job, as the BTS already reports all open bugs
> > twice a week to every developer.
>
> I don't get such a report.
Probably because you are not subscribed to the bug-report mailing list ;-)
You have the choice to either recieve bug report synopsis this way, or not
by whether you choose to subscribe, or not.
The nag messages are specifically designed so that individual developers
may _not_ request they not recieve such mail.
If you can't see the principle involved in the difference between these
two approaches, then I regret I will never be able to convince you there
is, indeed, a difference.
>
> > If this was simply a report to the list, once in a while, like the
> > "critical bugs that need to be fixed" list, there would be no problem.
> > Instead this mail is generated automatically and sent to every developer
> > with an open bug report over a certain age.
>
> Why does this mean it's a problem?
Because there is no mechanism (aside from closing the bug report) for
stopping such messages, if you find them offensive, useless, and obnoxious
clutter! I am being imposed upon, by someone who is supposed to be a
"fellow developer", in a way that I find totally unhelpful. When this,
supposidly competent programmer tells me he can not impliment an exception
list for these mails, I must wonder why I am being treated like a child
with a dirty room.
There is a significant difference between a "reasoned" list of "critical
release bugs" and the arbitrary "age" mechanism of the nag system. There
are many _good_ reasons to leave a bug report open for an indefinite
period of time. There is nothing inately evil about an open bug report.
The nag message implies that exactly the opposite is the case.
>
> > This is not a "person" asking a developer to fix a bug. This is an
> > automated system that spits out messages with NO content of use to the
> > developer, and adds nothing but bulk to the already functional system.
>
> The person already asked for a fix, and generally deserves a timely
> fix. Why not close the bugs instead of complaining about those that
> remind you to?
Many bug reports ask for different behaviour without reguard for the
larger issues involved. My experience is that closing such bugs is not a
solution that is usually acceptable to the reporter.
The person may ask for a fix, but provide no solution. The obvious
solutions may be undesirable. A reasonable solution may not exist, or may
require the modification of other packages before it can be implimented.
The list of reasons not to close a bug are long, but boil down to one
simple fact. You don't close a bug report until the bug is fixed, and
time is not the sole criterion for "fixability". To be reminded of
something you already know about is, at best, redundant.
Luck,
Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide" _-_-_-_-_-_-
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL 32308
_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
