Hi guys,
surely this is not the correct forum … but let me ask anyway.
Searching through bugzilla database problem related to wifi and hidden ESSID, a lot of bugs are marked with a status “RESOLVED” and the resolution is “Handling upstream” (e.g. bug 564259).
Sorry, but being a non english speaking guy (and surely a little bit dumb) I don’t understand the meaning.
So handling upstream means “not a openSUSE problem and not fixable by us”? Or what else?
“hidden ESSID” is tumbling through openSUSE version and is never really solved, but bugs keep getting closed, while the problem is still an issue (even if not present in the “known issues”).
Sorry, I don’t want to bother you with wifi, mine is just a semantic question.
On 07/08/2011 10:06 AM, acez wrote:
> So handling upstream means “not a openSUSE problem and not fixable by
> us”? Or what else?
exactly. openSUSE is working correctly and wi-fi would work on openSUSE if the driver worked…but since the driver does not work, and we
don’t build the driver, the folk “up the stream” must make it work
those fixing folks are up the river, closer to the source of the ‘water’
flowing past us, going down the stream carrying the software to the user…
> “hidden ESSID” is tumbling through openSUSE version and is never really
> solved, but bugs keep getting closed, while the problem is still an
> issue (even if not present in the “known issues”).
if that is another question, i don’t understand it (maybe it is not a
question…i mean, it has no question mark!)
I’ll give my take on this, since it has happened to bugs I have submitted.
In one case, they passed the bug up to KDE.org. This makes sense to me. As long as KDE.org is working on the problem, that is where a KDE problem is best solved. And, yes, that is considered upstream.
In another case, with exmh, they found the problem and gave me a repo from which I could install a fixed version (for testing). Then they passed that back to sourceforge, from where they receive the software. And sourceforge is thus upstream for the problem. My guess is that they won’t actually provide an update for the problem, until they receive one from sourceforge.
In my opinion, they are doing a great job. For open source software, passing it upstream is what is needed to make the sure that the problem is solved for all users of that software.
I’m not criticizing. I do agree “they” (“we”?) are doing a great job.
Maybe (but it’s my small point of view), what is “handed over”, should not be closed as “RESOLVED” but as something else (let’s say “WIP”-Work in process, “OUT-OF-SCOPE”, or something similar). But, it’s a kind of semantic prospective, not substantive one.
Resolved doesn’t mean fixed. In Bugzilla, Resolved can be Wontfix, Worksforme, and Fixed. So this is a case of Wontfix, and the software is known to be broken and the problem has to be checked at the next release, which may or may not then give rise to a new issue.
ken yap wrote:
> Resolved doesn’t mean fixed. In Bugzilla, Resolved can be Wontfix,
> Worksforme, and Fixed. So this is a case of Wontfix, and the software is
> known to be broken and the problem has to be checked at the next
> release, which may or may not then give rise to a new issue.
In this case the resolution is UPSTREAM as opposed to WONTFIX
On 2011-07-08 14:06, acez wrote:
>
> Thanks a lot nrickert.
>
> I’m not criticizing. I do agree “they” (“we”?) are doing a great job.
> Maybe (but it’s my small point of view), what is “handed over”, should
> not be closed as “RESOLVED” but as something else (let’s say “WIP”-Work
> in process, “OUT-OF-SCOPE”, or something similar). But, it’s a kind of
> semantic prospective, not substantive one.
I agree, I think the same. They are not solved bugs, they washed their
hands off them.
They should be left open till the issue is solved upstream, and then the
resolution should be copied over.
IMO.
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 11.4 x86_64 “Celadon” at Telcontar)
The problem is that a bug is associated with a version of the software. So what has actually to happen is that the ticket has to be reopened against the new version if the bug still exists there. Resolutions are never forever, it’s just a working determination, and the workflow is driven by bottom up bug reports.
Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 2011-07-08 14:06, acez wrote:
>> Thanks a lot nrickert.
>>
>> I’m not criticizing. I do agree “they” (“we”?) are doing a great job.
>> Maybe (but it’s my small point of view), what is “handed over”, should
>> not be closed as “RESOLVED” but as something else (let’s say “WIP”-Work
>> in process, “OUT-OF-SCOPE”, or something similar). But, it’s a kind of
>> semantic prospective, not substantive one.
>
> I agree, I think the same. They are not solved bugs, they washed their
> hands off them.
I don’t think they ‘washed their hands’. In this case and probably many
others, it may well be the same person upstream as well. All that’s
happening is that an issue is being moved from one bugzilla to another
(or whatever tracking system is used upstream).
I guess what might be useful would be if Will (or whoever moved it) had
posted a URL to the upstream bugzilla, so interested parties could
continue to watch the action.
> They should be left open till the issue is solved upstream, and then the
> resolution should be copied over.
I suspect the practical issue is whether whoever’s responsible for
monitoring this bugzilla has to keep wasting time looking at and
ignoring this issue every day/week/whatever. I expect that RESOLVED
means it doesn’t turn up in their list of things to do.
The important thing to remember is that as well as bug reporters using
the bugzilla there are also people trying to solve the bugs who use it.
The system needs to work for everybody. If the easiest way to do it
means that bug reporters have to look for the word UPSTREAM as well as
the word RESOLVED, I don’t think that’s too difficult.
An interesting question to me is that this bug refers to 11.2. Is there
a way to see if the same bug exists for 11.3 and 11.4?
The way bugzillas are managed is inconsistent and confusing. It gives the impression that opensuse has lost control of the problems in the system. There is at least one, (or at least there was over 2 weeks ago before a lightning strike took out my adsl), open bugzilla for a bug that has been fixed upstream.
I agree that upstream problems should be passed upstream. There should be a reference to the ticket raised when the problem was passed upstream. If there is no intention of fixing the problem even if a fix is made available it should be closed WONTFIX. If the problem could eventually be fixed in the opensuse release the problem should be left open but with the handlingupstream status and the ticked number. Serious WONTFIX should be documented as restrictions or known permanent problems.
The list of restrictions and permanent problems should be moved up to the next opensuse release/version and any resolved problems removed.
It is a waste of time to re-report a problem that has not been worked on upstream just because there has been a new opensuse release
It’s a limitation of the way the workflow is defined in bugzilla. It was designed as a bottom up system and it’s showing its limitations when put in a chain of issue reporting systems.
On 2011-07-08, acez <acez@no-mx.forums.opensuse.org> wrote:
>
> Thanks a lot nrickert.
>
> I’m not criticizing. I do agree “they” (“we”?) are doing a great job.
> Maybe (but it’s my small point of view), what is “handed over”, should
> not be closed as “RESOLVED” but as something else (let’s say “WIP”-Work
> in process, “OUT-OF-SCOPE”, or something similar). But, it’s a kind of
> semantic prospective, not substantive one.
In our company, when we hand over a problem to a party over which we have no
control, we put the status to HOLD. Then, when the feedback comes, we resume
the handling of the case with more work or a closure.
On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 00:05:25 +0000, Rikishi42 wrote:
> In our company, when we hand over a problem to a party over which we
> have no control, we put the status to HOLD. Then, when the feedback
> comes, we resume the handling of the case with more work or a closure.
Where I used to work, Office Services used to mark any request as
“resolved” regardless of whether anything had been done. Helped their
bonuses, I suppose.
Interested to see it confirmed that bugs are passed upstream. A while
ago, I was just told to re-submit a bug to KDE - no offer to pass it
upstream. Luck of the draw, I suppose?
–
Graham Davis, Bracknell, Berks.
openSUSE 11.4; KDE 4.6.5; AMD Phenom II X2 550 Processor;
Video: nVidia GeForce 210; Sound: ATI SBx00 Azalia (Intel HDA);
Wireless: BCM4306
vindevienne wrote:
> The way bugzillas are managed is inconsistent and confusing. It gives
> the impression that opensuse has lost control of the problems in the
> system. There is at least one, (or at least there was over 2 weeks ago
> before a lightning strike took out my adsl), open bugzilla for a bug
> that has been fixed upstream.
>
> I agree that upstream problems should be passed upstream. There should
> be a reference to the ticket raised when the problem was passed
> upstream. If there is no intention of fixing the problem even if a fix
> is made available it should be closed WONTFIX. If the problem could
> eventually be fixed in the opensuse release the problem should be left
> open but with the handlingupstream status and the ticked number. Serious
> WONTFIX should be documented as restrictions or known permanent
> problems.
>
> The list of restrictions and permanent problems should be moved up to
> the next opensuse release/version and any resolved problems removed.
>
> It is a waste of time to re-report a problem that has not been worked
> on upstream just because there has been a new opensuse release
Reading this, most of it seems like a good idea to me. But it also looks
like it would be extra work. I’m not sure who’d be doing that extra work?
> In our company, when we hand over a problem to a party over which we have no
> control, we put the status to HOLD. Then, when the feedback comes, we resume
> the handling of the case with more work or a closure.
It appears that Bugzilla lacks important features.
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 11.4 x86_64 “Celadon” at Telcontar)
On 2011-07-08 16:10, Dave Howorth wrote:
> Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> On 2011-07-08 14:06, acez wrote:
> I don’t think they ‘washed their hands’. In this case and probably many
> others, it may well be the same person upstream as well. All that’s
> happening is that an issue is being moved from one bugzilla to another
> (or whatever tracking system is used upstream).
But not linked -automated or otherwise.
>> They should be left open till the issue is solved upstream, and then the
>> resolution should be copied over.
>
> I suspect the practical issue is whether whoever’s responsible for
> monitoring this bugzilla has to keep wasting time looking at and
> ignoring this issue every day/week/whatever. I expect that RESOLVED
> means it doesn’t turn up in their list of things to do.
So Bugzilla doesn’t have the needed features.
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 11.4 x86_64 “Celadon” at Telcontar)