10 ms·

Everyone on the CC list for each bugzilla bug was notified 6 months ago that any bug without action in over a year would be frozen instead of migrated. (Do kee

Everyone on the CC list for each bugzilla bug was notified 6 months ago that any bug without action in over a year would be frozen instead of migrated. (Do keep in mind that GNOME, unlike corporate projects, is largely volunteer based and time, resources, and contributors are limited) As the email said, you just needed to ACK a comment on the bug to keep it alive and ensure its migration. Given the nearly 900,000 bugs filed in the life-span of bugzilla, I think that was an acceptable trade-off given the very small workforce. Hopefully, the gitlab tooling will allow us to track things going forward much better. Personally, I think a lot of bugs in Bugzilla were just left open instead of closed due to a difference of opinion/vision but different maintainers have different triage styles.

nisa 8y ago
Intentional or not... you pretty much agree with jwz: https://anonym.to/?https://www.jwz.org/doc/cadt.html https://anonym.to/?https://www.jwz.org/doc/cadt.html (https://www.jwz.org/doc/cadt.html https://www.jwz.org/doc/cadt.html - jwz has some nasty opinion about hn visitors - so the first link omits the referer)
- shawnz 8y ago
  It did not omit the referrer for me.
  - nisa 8y ago
    replaced the link, but anonym.to is also sketchy...
  - smallbigfish 8y ago
    This might help in the future if you use Firefox: https://feeding.cloud.geek.nz/posts/tweaking-referrer-for-privacy-in-firefox/ https://feeding.cloud.geek.nz/posts/tweaking-referrer-for-pr... A quite safe value from there is network.http.referer.XOriginPolicy = 1 which will not send a referrer to third party domains outside of the base domain.
- dspillett 8y ago
  > jwz has some nasty opinion about hn visitors - so the first link omits the referer I prefer to just not go. If he doesn't want the likes of me there then I'm happy not to waste effort trying to pay attention to whatever it is he is saying.
jancsika 8y ago
> Everyone on the CC list for each bugzilla bug was notified 6 months ago that any bug without action in over a year would be frozen instead of migrated. What's the relationship between the existence of a bug in the codebase and the propensity of the bug reporter to respond to an email? > Personally, I think a lot of bugs in Bugzilla were just left open instead of closed due to a difference of opinion/vision but different maintainers have different triage styles. How does Gitlab prevent those same maintainers from creating that same problem again?
- audidude 8y ago
  > What's the relationship between the existence of a bug in the codebase and the propensity of the bug reporter to respond to an email? It's not clear to me the question here, can you be more specific? Many bugs filed are not necessarily bugs in the codebase. I do wish we treated bugs and user support separately. I rather prefer the terseness of an engineering journal for what it is, but that tends to anger those expecting user support. > How does Gitlab prevent those same maintainers from creating that same problem again? In Bugzilla, the only real option we had was "Closed: WONTFIX/NOTABUG" which almost always resulted in hurt feelings on the part of the bug reporter. I think the gitlab tooling allows us to be more diplomatic in closing bugs that are out-of-scope or not aligned with the goals of the project at large.
  - jancsika 8y ago
    > It's not clear to me the question here, can you be more specific? Many bugs filed are not necessarily bugs in the codebase. Right. So your goal is to separate reports about bona fide bugs in the codebase from reports that either a) are no longer bugs in the codebase or b) are issues outside the scope of the codebase. That's a laudable goal. Filtering out years of bugs based on the lack of timely response from a submitter (or others) doesn't seem like a sound way to achieve that goal. There's no clear relationship between a lack of response and the relevant bug's existence/non-existence.
    - hinkley 8y ago
matttproud 8y ago
I wish it was that simple, but I never received a single notice of the migration or my need to do anything at all as a bug reporter. (Just ran a liberal grep on my inbox right now.) The only notice I received was after-the-fact. Sorry. Learning of GNOME'S cavalier attitude toward user reports and eventual product direction was exactly why I moved off the platform in the intervening years. I had high hopes when I was young and naive. I realize GNOME is volunteer-based with a pillar of corporate backing from Red Hat and similar, but it strikes me as botched that if enough will existed to migrate to GitLab, an endeavor that requires serious engineering hours of research and planning and execution, that nobody could have said: let's query and build a list of unique email addresses from bug reporters and personally email them once with a quick letter, letting them know what they need to do. Compared to the actual migration, that is drops in a bathtub. Simple due diligence for user-facing goodwill. I want to be sympathetic — really. JWZ's CADT supposition has a lot of explanatory power here combined with the opportunity to "scrub a lot of bugs quickly".
- baud147258 8y ago
  Link for Jwz's cadt post https://www.jwz.org/doc/cadt.html https://www.jwz.org/doc/cadt.html (edit: I didn't see it was already posted below)
  - anowlcalledjosh 8y ago
    Quick reminder: JWZ despises HN, so you'll need to copy-paste that link in order to remove the referrer header.
    - TheRealDunkirk 8y ago
      I'm not saying the bridge has been repaired, but clicking that link doesn't seem to redirect to... THAT... image any more.
      - fao_ 8y ago
        FYI - For me it auto-redirects to: https://imgur.com/32R3qLv https://imgur.com/32R3qLv
chris_wot 8y ago
There were bugs that the Gnome devs refused to fix even with patches. And not stupid patches, but reasonable ones.
boomlinde 8y ago
> (Do keep in mind that GNOME, unlike corporate projects, is largely volunteer based and time, resources, and contributors are limited) All the more reason not to undo the work of its contributors.

nisa 8y ago

Intentional or not... you pretty much agree with jwz: https://anonym.to/?https://www.jwz.org/doc/cadt.html https://anonym.to/?https://www.jwz.org/doc/cadt.html (https://www.jwz.org/doc/cadt.html https://www.jwz.org/doc/cadt.html - jwz has some nasty opinion about hn visitors - so the first link omits the referer)

shawnz 8y ago
It did not omit the referrer for me.
- nisa 8y ago
  replaced the link, but anonym.to is also sketchy...
- smallbigfish 8y ago
  This might help in the future if you use Firefox: https://feeding.cloud.geek.nz/posts/tweaking-referrer-for-privacy-in-firefox/ https://feeding.cloud.geek.nz/posts/tweaking-referrer-for-pr... A quite safe value from there is network.http.referer.XOriginPolicy = 1 which will not send a referrer to third party domains outside of the base domain.
dspillett 8y ago
> jwz has some nasty opinion about hn visitors - so the first link omits the referer I prefer to just not go. If he doesn't want the likes of me there then I'm happy not to waste effort trying to pay attention to whatever it is he is saying.

jancsika 8y ago

> Everyone on the CC list for each bugzilla bug was notified 6 months ago that any bug without action in over a year would be frozen instead of migrated. What's the relationship between the existence of a bug in the codebase and the propensity of the bug reporter to respond to an email? > Personally, I think a lot of bugs in Bugzilla were just left open instead of closed due to a difference of opinion/vision but different maintainers have different triage styles. How does Gitlab prevent those same maintainers from creating that same problem again?

audidude 8y ago
> What's the relationship between the existence of a bug in the codebase and the propensity of the bug reporter to respond to an email? It's not clear to me the question here, can you be more specific? Many bugs filed are not necessarily bugs in the codebase. I do wish we treated bugs and user support separately. I rather prefer the terseness of an engineering journal for what it is, but that tends to anger those expecting user support. > How does Gitlab prevent those same maintainers from creating that same problem again? In Bugzilla, the only real option we had was "Closed: WONTFIX/NOTABUG" which almost always resulted in hurt feelings on the part of the bug reporter. I think the gitlab tooling allows us to be more diplomatic in closing bugs that are out-of-scope or not aligned with the goals of the project at large.
- jancsika 8y ago
  > It's not clear to me the question here, can you be more specific? Many bugs filed are not necessarily bugs in the codebase. Right. So your goal is to separate reports about bona fide bugs in the codebase from reports that either a) are no longer bugs in the codebase or b) are issues outside the scope of the codebase. That's a laudable goal. Filtering out years of bugs based on the lack of timely response from a submitter (or others) doesn't seem like a sound way to achieve that goal. There's no clear relationship between a lack of response and the relevant bug's existence/non-existence.
  - hinkley 8y ago

matttproud 8y ago

I wish it was that simple, but I never received a single notice of the migration or my need to do anything at all as a bug reporter. (Just ran a liberal grep on my inbox right now.) The only notice I received was after-the-fact. Sorry. Learning of GNOME'S cavalier attitude toward user reports and eventual product direction was exactly why I moved off the platform in the intervening years. I had high hopes when I was young and naive. I realize GNOME is volunteer-based with a pillar of corporate backing from Red Hat and similar, but it strikes me as botched that if enough will existed to migrate to GitLab, an endeavor that requires serious engineering hours of research and planning and execution, that nobody could have said: let's query and build a list of unique email addresses from bug reporters and personally email them once with a quick letter, letting them know what they need to do. Compared to the actual migration, that is drops in a bathtub. Simple due diligence for user-facing goodwill. I want to be sympathetic — really. JWZ's CADT supposition has a lot of explanatory power here combined with the opportunity to "scrub a lot of bugs quickly".

baud147258 8y ago
Link for Jwz's cadt post https://www.jwz.org/doc/cadt.html https://www.jwz.org/doc/cadt.html (edit: I didn't see it was already posted below)
- anowlcalledjosh 8y ago
  Quick reminder: JWZ despises HN, so you'll need to copy-paste that link in order to remove the referrer header.
  - TheRealDunkirk 8y ago
    I'm not saying the bridge has been repaired, but clicking that link doesn't seem to redirect to... THAT... image any more.
    - fao_ 8y ago
      FYI - For me it auto-redirects to: https://imgur.com/32R3qLv https://imgur.com/32R3qLv

chris_wot 8y ago

There were bugs that the Gnome devs refused to fix even with patches. And not stupid patches, but reasonable ones.

boomlinde 8y ago

> (Do keep in mind that GNOME, unlike corporate projects, is largely volunteer based and time, resources, and contributors are limited) All the more reason not to undo the work of its contributors.