This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: bug tracker discussion
- From: "Yaakov (Cygwin/X)" <yselkowitz at users dot sourceforge dot net>
- To: cygwin-apps <cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 13:51:51 -0500
- Subject: Re: bug tracker discussion
- References: <20100820180140.GA17235@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 14:01 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> Can I get a show of hands? How many package maintainers would like to
> have a bug tracker?
Depends on how we use it.
Don't get me wrong -- I like working with Bugzilla, and we do use it
*internally* for Cygwin/X, but the list is still the support forum for
It doesn't take much imagination to see what would happen if bugzilla
was where users went first for support: it would be a full-time job
(hmm...) just bug wrangling (translate: marking almost all the "bugs"
RESOLVED NOTABUG, which is just a nice way of saying PEBKAC :-). The
list is a better way of handling these sort of queries, where more
people (including other end-users with more experience) are around to
OTOH, I do sometimes miss things on the main list due to the
signal-to-noise ratio, which I imaging would be even greater for a
maintainer with only a small number of packages. So using Bugzilla
"internally" would be helpful.
* Mailing list remains support forum for users.
* All package maintainers have bugzilla accounts.
1) User sends issue to mailing list.
2) "First responder" (any maintainer who regularly answers questions on
list) finds legitimate package bug.
3) "First responder" opens bug, pointing to ML with any further
observations, assigned to relevant package maintainer (and maybe CC's OP
4) Package maintainer addresses issue and closes bug.
Using bugzilla also allows us to see if issues aren't being handled. If
a bug is opened but maintainer does not respond, then that should give
us an idea that the maintainer is MIA or the package is orphaned.
> Another thing that I think is important is that we would have to adopt a
> standard for how we treat bugs. I'm not really keen on using the bug
> tracker as a knowledge base for end-user ssh problems. I don't think
> that's what a bug tracker is for. That's what a FAQ is for.
Agreed, especially as most end-user ssh problems aren't bugs in ssh.
> And, in that line, how about per-package FAQs on the cygwin site?
That might very well be helpful.