From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Karl Fogel Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Bug statistics Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 17:31:56 -0400 Message-ID: <87vd9623zn.fsf@red-bean.com> References: <1focf1eb1p.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <201006241959.12567.tassilo@member.fsf.org> <83hbkre7fj.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Karl Fogel NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1277501548 25675 80.91.229.12 (25 Jun 2010 21:32:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 21:32:28 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Tassilo Horn , rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jun 25 23:32:21 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OSGVZ-0000i9-1s for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 25 Jun 2010 23:32:21 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57715 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OSGVY-0000rG-8b for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 25 Jun 2010 17:32:20 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=45295 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OSGVI-0000ob-OD for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 25 Jun 2010 17:32:06 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OSGVH-0005bh-KQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 25 Jun 2010 17:32:04 -0400 Original-Received: from osh-net-219-98.onshore.net ([66.146.219.98]:36476 helo=sanpietro.red-bean.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OSGVH-0005aC-Hz; Fri, 25 Jun 2010 17:32:03 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57654 helo=kfogel-work ident=kfogel) by sanpietro.red-bean.com with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1OSGVA-0003FS-Om; Fri, 25 Jun 2010 16:31:56 -0500 In-Reply-To: <83hbkre7fj.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Fri, 25 Jun 2010 13:24:32 +0300") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:126405 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >This is also far from ideal. Unless you have a lot of time on your >hands, going through the bugs and trying to figure out if they are the >same as yours is a nuisance. This should be a job of some program >that runs periodically, or, failing that, of a human (whom we >obviously lack). FWIW, when I've experienced this automated dup-finding in the web interface of other bug trackers, it has not been a nuisance -- on the contrary it was a great relief, because it helped me know I'm not wasting the developers' time with a duplicate report. (The majority of the time, it did find a dup of what I was about to file. Sometimes I was able to go to that existing report and add useful information.) For me it became one of those "never go back" features, like sexp motion in Emacs. >Gathering all the information needed for a good bug report is already >a non-trivial job (witness how many veteran Emacs contributors fail to >do that!). We should not burden the bug submitters with any >additional costs. It wasn't a burden at all (for me) -- quite the opposite.