Re: Why Emacs needs a modern bug tracker

["Andreas Röhler" <andreas.roehler@online.de>]

Am Freitag, 4. Januar 2008 17:44 schrieb Eric S. Raymond:
> This is a slightly edited version of an argument I sent privately
> to Stefan Monnier.  In view of Gianluca Della Vedova's observations
> on this topic, posting it to the list seems merited.
>
> Stefan wrote, describing Emacs's present workflow:
> > In any case the "email access" [requirement] is mostly:
> > - users should be able to report bugs via email (and via M-x
> >   report-emacs-bug) rather than via the web.
> > - all the discussion around a bug should happen via email, basically in
> >   the emacs-devel mailing-list.
> >
> > I.e. all we need in addition to what we currently have, is a central
> > place to record "issues" and link them to specific threads of the
> > mailing-list.  This central place should be easily accessible from
> > within Emacs, of course, together with a few bindings to Gnus so that
> > I can easily add the current message to the list of issues and so I can
> > jump from an issue back to the relevant thread.
>
> I think Stefan is expressing a view that is pretty common among the
> old-school Emacs devs here.  Alas, I think it's quite far out of
> touch with the reality of 2008.
>
> For a project the size of Emacs even Stefan's "all we need" would
> be seriously inadequate as described.  What he actually describe
> having is so weak a support structure that it probably goes a long way
> towards explaining Emacs's troubles and our pathologically long
> development cycle.
>
> Let me explain how I know these things...
>
> I lead another project called GPSD where we don't use an issue tracker
> and don't miss it -- we do things the way Emacs now does, all email
> bug reports all the time. One thing you can correctly deduce from this
> is that I'm not simply attached to issue trackers in some habitual or
> irrational way.  When they're not needed, I don't use them.
>
> On the other hand, I know from observation that the Wesnoth project
> is seriously slowed down and injured without its issue tracker.
> The servers at gna.org occasionally flake out for an hour or two,
> and I get to see what happens to productivity.  It's not pretty.
>
> The difference is scale.  GPSD is about 60K lines of code, with a
> COCOMO estimate of about 14.2 person-years and about 3 active
> developers; normally we only have three or four issues active at once.
> Wesnoth is a hair over 100K lines, with a COCOMO estimate of 25.6
> years and 10-12 active developers; over the last year we've gone from
> about 500 issues tracked to a bit over 300 (currently 196 feature requests,
> 89 bugs, and the remainder marked Fixed but not yet purged).
>
> Somewhere in the scale range between GPSD and Wesnoth, having an issue
> tracker moves from being a dispensable luxury to being an extremely
> important tool. Actually, I'm pretty certain it's having a
> well-structured issue *database* that's important -- the ability to do
> queries like "show me all bugs on Mac OS/X assigned to edb" or "show
> me all bugs of severity 'blocker' on the 1.3 branch".
>
> One of the places a real issue database is most concretely useful is when
> you're triaging bugs to close on a release.  It is *immensely* helpful
> in making clear what needs to be done and at what point you are
> finished doing it.
>
> A sequential pile of bug emails, or even indexed email threads, simply
> isn't a good enough organization for triaging or release prep at
> Wesnoth's scale.  I don't think we'd be able to make four releases a
> year if we were stuck to that, let alone a point release every three
> weeks.
>
> Now I consider Emacs: 1100K lines, a COCOMO estimate of over 328
> years, and no issue database. I think I think I understand much better
> now now why the team has only been able to ship one release in five years.
> Trying to converge on a releasable state with as poor a view of the
> Emacs bug load as we have must be damn near impossible.
>
> Only...I suspect you (the team) don't know how poor your view is,
> because you've never had a good view of a bug collection at your scale
> to contrast it with.  (To be fair, it's only in the last two or three
> years that I have grasped this myself.)
>
> Beside the searchability problems with pile-of-emails organization
> is another one; accepting emailed reports makes even *collecting*
> well-structured information about bugs highly problematic.
>
> The good thing about bug-tracker web forms from a developer point of
> view isn't really that they're web, it's that they're *forms*. You can
> channel your users into identifying the platform they're running on,
> the preceived bug severity, and half a dozen other search keys.
>
> In email, users will embed these things in running text and expect
> you to parse them by eyeball.  Which means if you want a database
> of bug reports instead of a mere pile of them, you get to re-enter
> each one.  Yuck.  In practice, nobody is ever willing to do this.
>
> This means that email bug entry needs to be deprecated, redirecting
> people to a web form (or, in the special case of Emacs, a simulated
> form in emacsbug).  Had you not wondered why Emacs is about the only
> major project left that *isn't* trying to push its users onto an issue
> tracker?  This is why...
>
> To sum up the back-end argument, the reason I want Emacs to have a
> real bug tracker is for the database it will build, so we'll have a
> better view of our bugs.  From this (developer) point of view it's
> accidental rather than essential that the all the good ones built in
> the last decade are Web-facing.
>
> Now let's talk about user experience.
>
> *This* is where browser-centric interfaces become important.  I
> know from recent experience on Wesnoth and elsewhere that most users
> actually prefer using a well-designed web-based bug tracker to
> emailing bug reports.  For them, it *is* about the browser UI.  They
> find the structure and the sense of familiarity reassuring.
>
> Gianluca makes exactly this point in his post.  Here is a further
> reality check: My wife Cathy is an attorney, not a geek.  She cheerfully
> turns in bug reports on the Wesnoth tracker.  It is not even really
> imaginable that she would email to a Wesnoth bug mailing list.  She
> tried this once with the KDE guys and had a bad, *bad* experience
> of geek snottiness.
>
> Fortunately, most modern issue trackers allow you to feed all the
> submissions and followon comments to a designated buglist.  So, if and
> when we activate one, you old-schoolers will be able to keep your Gnus
> readers.


Should the captain leave the bridge and/or pass the
command I'm afraid of bad weather coming too.

Maybe it's the right time to provide something in this
respect, to reconsider Emacs as such, what it shall be,
which direction to take.

With Richard, principles of developing are more or less
immanent by his decisions and experience. 
To keep this waste universe of code running smoothly
 will afterwards need a lot more of
outspoken rules than now.

Concerning the bugtracking: a lot of bugs reported
aren't really one. That can't be changed. What with all
this false bugs in a database?

OTOH some severe bugs seem reported from time to time,
but not fixed so far. Will a database change that?

What about some kind of a blackboard, establishing a
hierarchy of important bugs naming a person in charge
for it?

Thanks all

Andreas Röhler