5 ms·

Drive by issues are noise? So if I say "library X fails with this input" and don't follow up/triage/commit code, then this is a waste of time? I strongly disag

Drive by issues are noise? So if I say "library X fails with this input" and don't follow up/triage/commit code, then this is a waste of time? I strongly disagree. Follow-up and collaboration are great, but someone taking the time to write a decent bug report is also valuable.

detaro 6y ago
Presumably if it's a "decent bug report", needing additional feedback etc is less likely, and I assume GP is more talking about bug reports that are not really usable without further information. (Although even if you are careful at providing information, you can easily hit cases where more information is needed)
andrew_ 6y ago
This presumes that all opened issues are decent. It also presumes that the author of the issue responds to feedback. What I would quantify as drive-by issues include poorly written, lacking information, or providing information that results in a follow up reply from other users or maintainers with a fix or ask for more information that goes unanswered. "library X fails with this input" is great, unless the input is wrong, the usage is wrong, or the environment is awry - and those issues are useless if the author doesn't reply to follow up replies.
- account42 6y ago
  Closing bugs because they don't contain enough info and the reporter is not responsive to providing the required info is commpletely fine. Closing based on inactivity alone is just rude. > "library X fails with this input" is great, unless the input is wrong, the usage is wrong, or the environment is awry - and those issues are useless if the author doesn't reply to follow up replies. They could still be a hint that the documentation or reported error could be clearer.
  - andrew_ 6y ago
    We disagree. My experience with several extremely large projects has yielded the judgement that closing tickets which are years old without activity is prudent, as is setting a reasonable time frame in which an issue is too stale.

detaro 6y ago

Presumably if it's a "decent bug report", needing additional feedback etc is less likely, and I assume GP is more talking about bug reports that are not really usable without further information. (Although even if you are careful at providing information, you can easily hit cases where more information is needed)

andrew_ 6y ago

This presumes that all opened issues are decent. It also presumes that the author of the issue responds to feedback. What I would quantify as drive-by issues include poorly written, lacking information, or providing information that results in a follow up reply from other users or maintainers with a fix or ask for more information that goes unanswered. "library X fails with this input" is great, unless the input is wrong, the usage is wrong, or the environment is awry - and those issues are useless if the author doesn't reply to follow up replies.

account42 6y ago
Closing bugs because they don't contain enough info and the reporter is not responsive to providing the required info is commpletely fine. Closing based on inactivity alone is just rude. > "library X fails with this input" is great, unless the input is wrong, the usage is wrong, or the environment is awry - and those issues are useless if the author doesn't reply to follow up replies. They could still be a hint that the documentation or reported error could be clearer.
- andrew_ 6y ago
  We disagree. My experience with several extremely large projects has yielded the judgement that closing tickets which are years old without activity is prudent, as is setting a reasonable time frame in which an issue is too stale.