* Bugs cannot be updated if they are archived?
@ 2008-12-13 21:37 Drew Adams
2008-12-13 23:08 ` Don Armstrong
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Drew Adams @ 2008-12-13 21:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: emacs-devel
I don't know what "archiving" a bug amounts to - does it mean that the bug is
closed?
I filed a bug, #119, which was (apparently) archived for some reason, even
though the bug was never fixed. The bug is still a problem.
IIUC, Jason at one point marked this bug as fixed or soon-to-be-fixed or
something similar, expecting that the future merge of the font backend would fix
it. But the merge did not fix the bug. I replied, stating that the bug was still
not fixed. I don't know whether Jason's premature and partial fix notification
somehow caused the subsequent archiving and bug-tracker snafu.
I sent followup mail for bug #119, using "bug #119" in the subject line, as
usual. So did Jason. None of that mail changed the bug status or unarchived it.
The bug still does not show up among the "Outstanding" bugs.
I thought that it had disappeared entirely, and sent a mail to that effect a
month ago. Stephan Berman replied to me, saying that it shows up among the
"archived and unarchived reports", which it does.
It was (and is) not clear to me what that means. Is it archived or unarchived?
What does archiving (or unarchiving) mean? The heading that it appears under on
that "archived and unarchived reports" page is "Resolved bugs - Normal bugs".
What does "resolved" mean? This is that page:
http://emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?ordering=normal;archive=
both;package=emacs;repeatmerged=1
I don't know if this behavior represents a problem with the bug tracker or not.
Glenn suggested that it does, and from the little I understand, that makes sense
to me too. I replied to a message that said that the bug had been fixed, by
stating that it was still not fixed. But that reply apparently never affected
the bug status. Subsequent mails also had no effect. I opened a new bug today,
pointing to #119, and that's what drew Glenn's attention.
Whatever the correct diagnosis of the tracker status and problems might be, bug
#119 has not been fixed, and it does not appear among the Outstanding bugs.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Bugs cannot be updated if they are archived?
2008-12-13 21:37 Bugs cannot be updated if they are archived? Drew Adams
@ 2008-12-13 23:08 ` Don Armstrong
2008-12-13 23:57 ` Drew Adams
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Don Armstrong @ 2008-12-13 23:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: emacs-devel; +Cc: control
unarchive 119
forcemerge 119 1562
# dunno if this has actually been fixed or not...
reopen 119
thanks
On Sat, 13 Dec 2008, Drew Adams wrote:
> It was (and is) not clear to me what that means. Is it archived or
> unarchived?
It's archived.
> What does archiving (or unarchiving) mean?
Archiving means that the bug has been put in a separate location to
avoid cluttering the main view.
Bugs that are closed and have been inactive for more than 28 days are
archived.
> The heading that it appears under on that "archived and unarchived
> reports" page is "Resolved bugs - Normal bugs". What does "resolved"
> mean?
Resolved means that it has been fixed.
> I replied to a message that said that the bug had been fixed, by
> stating that it was still not fixed. But that reply apparently never
> affected the bug status.
The bug tracking system is not a full featured natural language
processing system, nor has it attained sentience. Someone has to mark
a bug as not being fixed. You can do this using the control interface
to the bug reporting system, as I have done with this email.
Otherwise, the human beings reading the mail has to do it.
> Whatever the correct diagnosis of the tracker status and problems
> might be, bug #119 has not been fixed, and it does not appear among
> the Outstanding bugs.
So instead of filing more bugs, reopen the original bug with more
information. See http://emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com/server-control for
more information.
Don Armstrong
--
Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for
the people.
-- Oscar Wilde
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* RE: Bugs cannot be updated if they are archived?
2008-12-13 23:08 ` Don Armstrong
@ 2008-12-13 23:57 ` Drew Adams
2008-12-14 0:31 ` Don Armstrong
2008-12-14 8:00 ` Stephen J. Turnbull
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Drew Adams @ 2008-12-13 23:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 'Don Armstrong', emacs-devel; +Cc: control
> > It was (and is) not clear to me what that means. Is it archived or
> > unarchived?
>
> It's archived.
So you click the link "archived and unarchived reports" to see reports that are
archived? Not too clear.
Actually, it seems that clicking that link shows all bugs, but that initially
only the outstanding (or the unarchived?) bugs are shown. If so, that's
confusing. Searching initially will not show an archived bug, but searching the
same page after clicking the link shows it.
How about clearly separating the various categories, and making it possible to
show (and search) all reports or just the reports of certain categories?
> > What does archiving (or unarchiving) mean?
>
> Archiving means that the bug has been put in a separate location to
> avoid cluttering the main view.
Putting it on a separate page would be cleaner and clearer, IMO. Your "separate
location" seems to be on the same page, but hidden initially (?).
> Bugs that are closed and have been inactive for more than 28 days are
> archived.
Is `closed' then a superset of `archived'? Or does `archived' include some stuff
that is not `closed'?
> > The heading that it appears under on that "archived and unarchived
> > reports" page is "Resolved bugs - Normal bugs". What does "resolved"
> > mean?
>
> Resolved means that it has been fixed.
Not in English, it doesn't. ;-) It means that something was decided about it (it
was settled conclusively in some way). Do you mean `fixed' or `closed'? It
sounds more like you mean `closed'.
> > I replied to a message that said that the bug had been fixed, by
> > stating that it was still not fixed. But that reply apparently never
> > affected the bug status.
>
> The bug tracking system is not a full featured natural language
> processing system, nor has it attained sentience. Someone has to mark
> a bug as not being fixed. You can do this using the control interface
> to the bug reporting system, as I have done with this email.
> Otherwise, the human beings reading the mail has to do it.
I see. I thought that any followup email, especially from the bug filer, would
be sufficient to keep a bug open (or reopen it). It wasn't even obvious to me
that the bug was closed. I was simply continuing (I thought), the original
bug-report email thread.
> > Whatever the correct diagnosis of the tracker status and problems
> > might be, bug #119 has not been fixed, and it does not appear among
> > the Outstanding bugs.
>
> So instead of filing more bugs, reopen the original bug with more
> information. See http://emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com/server-control for
> more information.
I would have, if I knew how.
However, I've also been explicitly told to open a new bug for bugs that have
been closed but that might still present a problem - including for this bug, a
couple of hours ago!
Whatever. I'm all for reopening an existing bug instead of just creating a new
pointer bug. Just tell me how.
I clicked that URL link in my mail client and got this message from my Web
browser:
"Internet Explorer cannot download server-control from
emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com. Internet Explorer was not able
to open this Internet site. The requested site is either
unavailable or cannot be found. Please try again later."
Where can I find the instructions for reopening etc. bugs? Is there another URL,
which I might be able to get to?
Oh - I see - that the URL works in Google Chrome. So your site appears to be
limited to particular browsers (and excludes the most commonly used browser).
From what I can gather from that page, all I would need to do, to reopen bug
119, is to put these lines in the body of an email that replies to the
bug-report thread (i.e. with the same subject line, containing "bug #119"):
reopen 119
stop
Is that correct? Or would I need to send that to control@bugs.debian.org,
instead of just replying to a mail in the bug-report thread?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Bugs cannot be updated if they are archived?
2008-12-13 23:57 ` Drew Adams
@ 2008-12-14 0:31 ` Don Armstrong
2008-12-14 1:09 ` Glenn Morris
2008-12-14 8:00 ` Stephen J. Turnbull
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Don Armstrong @ 2008-12-14 0:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: emacs-devel, control
On Sat, 13 Dec 2008, Drew Adams wrote:
> > > It was (and is) not clear to me what that means. Is it archived
> > > or unarchived?
> >
> > It's archived.
>
> So you click the link "archived and unarchived reports" to see
> reports that are archived? Not too clear.
You click on it to see "archived and unarchived reports"...
> Actually, it seems that clicking that link shows all bugs, but that
> initially only the outstanding (or the unarchived?) bugs are shown.
> If so, that's confusing. Searching initially will not show an
> archived bug, but searching the same page after clicking the link
> shows it.
The default is to only show unarchived bugs. If you want to see both,
or only archived bugs, you can select that at the bottom of the page.
> Your "separate location" seems to be on the same page, but hidden
> initially (?).
The separate location is a separate place on the filesystem.
> Is `closed' then a superset of `archived'?
Yes.
> Or does `archived' include some stuff that is not `closed'?
No.
> > > The heading that it appears under on that "archived and
> > > unarchived reports" page is "Resolved bugs - Normal bugs". What
> > > does "resolved" mean?
> >
> > Resolved means that it has been fixed.
>
> Not in English, it doesn't. ;-)
4. To determine or decide in purpose; to make ready in mind;
to fix; to settle; as, he was resolved by an unexpected
event.
[1913 Webster]
> I see. I thought that any followup email, especially from the bug
> filer, would be sufficient to keep a bug open (or reopen it).
It'll reset the archiving time, but it won't reopen it. Manual
intervention is required for that.
> > So instead of filing more bugs, reopen the original bug with more
> > information. See http://emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com/server-control
> > for more information.
>
> I would have, if I knew how.
See the link above.
> However, I've also been explicitly told to open a new bug for bugs
> that have been closed but that might still present a problem -
> including for this bug, a couple of hours ago!
Well, whoever is telling you that is making more work for themselves
and/or others.
> Whatever. I'm all for reopening an existing bug instead of just
> creating a new pointer bug. Just tell me how.
See the link above.
> Oh - I see - that the URL works in Google Chrome. So your site appears to be
> limited to particular browsers (and excludes the most commonly used browser).
If the spawn of redmond is unable to properly handle a simple HTTP GET
request, it's not my problem. Presumably they can provide support.
Don Armstrong
--
He was wrong. Nature abhors dimensional abnormalities, and seals them
neatly away so that they don't upset people. Nature, in fact, abhors a
lot of things, including vacuums, ships called the Marie Celeste, and
the chuck keys for electric drills.
-- Terry Pratchet _Pyramids_ p166
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Bugs cannot be updated if they are archived?
2008-12-14 0:31 ` Don Armstrong
@ 2008-12-14 1:09 ` Glenn Morris
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Glenn Morris @ 2008-12-14 1:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: emacs-devel
>> However, I've also been explicitly told to open a new bug for bugs
>> that have been closed but that might still present a problem -
>> including for this bug, a couple of hours ago!
Where is this "explicit" advice?
>> Whatever. I'm all for reopening an existing bug instead of just
>> creating a new pointer bug. Just tell me how.
>
> See the link above.
This will be fun...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* RE: Bugs cannot be updated if they are archived?
2008-12-13 23:57 ` Drew Adams
2008-12-14 0:31 ` Don Armstrong
@ 2008-12-14 8:00 ` Stephen J. Turnbull
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Stephen J. Turnbull @ 2008-12-14 8:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Drew Adams; +Cc: control, 'Don Armstrong', emacs-devel
Drew Adams writes:
> I see. I thought that any followup email, especially from the bug
> filer, would be sufficient to keep a bug open (or reopen it).
Some systems do work that way. Some don't. "He who does the work
makes the decisions."
> I clicked that URL link in my mail client and got this message from my Web
> browser:
>
> "Internet Explorer cannot download server-control from
> emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com. Internet Explorer was not able
> to open this Internet site. The requested site is either
> unavailable or cannot be found. Please try again later."
>
> Where can I find the instructions for reopening etc. bugs? Is there
> another URL, which I might be able to get to?
That URL works fine with any browser, including IE I'm sure. That
message is highly unlikely to indicate a *browser* problem; it usually
means that the DNS lookup failed. This regularly happens to me on Mac
as well as Windows (with hosts that are provably up, simply by routing
around the Mac- or Windows-induced failures). My guess is that their
resolvers cache failures aggressively and apparently assume that if
you miss the first time and try again, it's user brain damage rather
than a temporary network glitch, so they don't bother to try the DNS.
> Oh - I see - that the URL works in Google Chrome. So your site
> appears to be limited to particular browsers (and excludes the most
> commonly used browser).
There's nothing Don can do about a nameservice failure in your system,
so I don't see any justification for your tone.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2008-12-14 8:00 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2008-12-13 21:37 Bugs cannot be updated if they are archived? Drew Adams
2008-12-13 23:08 ` Don Armstrong
2008-12-13 23:57 ` Drew Adams
2008-12-14 0:31 ` Don Armstrong
2008-12-14 1:09 ` Glenn Morris
2008-12-14 8:00 ` Stephen J. Turnbull
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).