Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

[Michael Veksler <VEKSLER at il dot ibm dot com>]

[Gaby wants Vincent to explain:]
Vincent Lefevre <vincent+gcc@vinc17.org> writes:
#  This is complete non-sense. One doesn't prepare a patch for an invalid
#  bug.

[Michael tries to interpret Vincent:]
| I think that what Vincent meant was:
| "One doesn't prepare a patch for a PR marked as INVALID".


Gabriel Dos Reis wrote on 19/06/2005 19:06:13:
> Then let me explain my previous message.  Either
>
>   (1) Vincent thinks it is an invalid bug, then
>
>          http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-06/msg00818.html
>
>   (2) or Vincent thinks it is NOT an invalid bug, then
>
>          http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-06/msg00803.html
>

I don't see a contradiction. All he is trying to say that it is
a valid bug marked as INVALID. His claims that a patch will
be ignored if the PR is marked as INVALID make sense to me.

> Vincent can help himself changing the status of PRs, based on informed
> facts. And in effect, that just happened to that very PR.  If the only
> thing that was stopping him from producing a patch was the status of
> the PR, then now that it changed I expect patch from him.
>
I tend to agree with Vincent's view by not with his tone.
More than one PR that I opened (or its duplicate) were closed,
reopened (by me or others), and then closed again without
a serious discussion.
For example, PR 21951. Unfortunately, Bugzilla hides the history of
close / reopen so you can't see where exactly the bug changed
status back to NEW.


It is frustrating to discuss a validity of a PR in the following manner:

  Reporter:     bug description X
  Bug master: not a bug.    INVALID.
  Reporter: a bug because Y.   REOPEN.
  Bug master: not a bug because Z.   INVALID.
  Reported: a bug, here is an example.   REOPEN.
Assuming Reporter is "lucky":
  Bug master: Well, is guess it is a bug. (Title changed).


Despite being descriptive and friendly, bug masters
frustrate me and other users by being too eager
to close the PR. I would suggest a policy change,
a PR should be closed (as duplicate or as INVALID)
only after discussion was exhausted.

Instead of:
  Reporter:     bug description X
  Bug master: not a bug.    INVALID.

Try to do:
  Reporter:     bug description X
  Bug master: I think it is not a bug, because.
  Reporter: a bug because Y.
  Bug master: I disagree, because Z.
[no reply within 2 days]
  Bug master: INVALID



     Michael