GNU bug report logs - #36560
Add comment when closing bugs to show it was not by accident

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 36560 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 36560 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: 積丹尼 Dan Jacobson <jidanni <at> jidanni.org>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: Add comment when closing bugs to show it was not by accident
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2019 19:49:07 +0800

I see bugs are now just closed without comment these days.
http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=34307
http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=34311
If a comment is added, we can tell if they were closed by accident or not. 

Message #8 received at 36560 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: 積丹尼 Dan Jacobson <jidanni <at> jidanni.org>
To: 36560 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Adding tags is not proof that anybody actually read the bug report
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2019 20:02:47 +0800

Adding tags is not proof that anybody actually read the bug report.

Message #11 received at 36560 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: 積丹尼 Dan Jacobson <jidanni <at> jidanni.org>
Cc: 36560 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#36560: Adding tags is not proof that anybody actually read
 the bug report
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2019 14:06:12 +0200

積丹尼 Dan Jacobson <jidanni <at> jidanni.org> writes:

> Adding tags is not proof that anybody actually read the bug report.

The bugs in question were already marked as "wontfix".  Closing.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

Message #18 received at 36560-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: 積丹尼 Dan Jacobson <jidanni <at> jidanni.org>
Cc: 36560-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#36560: Add comment when closing bugs to show it was not by
 accident
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2019 18:08:15 +0300

> From: 積丹尼 Dan Jacobson
>  <jidanni <at> jidanni.org>
> Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2019 19:49:07 +0800
> 
> I see bugs are now just closed without comment these days.
> http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=34307
> http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=34311
> If a comment is added, we can tell if they were closed by accident or not. 

They were both tagged "wontfix", which explains the reason nicely, I
think.

Message #21 received at 36560 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: 積丹尼 Dan Jacobson <jidanni <at> jidanni.org>
Cc: 36560 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#36560: Adding tags is not proof that anybody actually read the
 bug report
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2019 18:10:46 +0300

> From: 積丹尼 Dan Jacobson
>  <jidanni <at> jidanni.org>
> Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2019 20:02:47 +0800
> 
> Adding tags is not proof that anybody actually read the bug report.

Of course, it is.  You can see in the bug Web page that the request to
tag the bug was from a person, not from am machine.

Message #24 received at 36560 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: 積丹尼 Dan Jacobson <jidanni <at> jidanni.org>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 36560 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#36560: Adding tags is not proof that anybody actually read
 the bug report
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2019 23:16:34 +0800

I'm saying one could use the bts(1) command and fire off the same
wontfix + close commands to a long list of bug numbers.

Message #27 received at 36560 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: 積丹尼 Dan Jacobson <jidanni <at> jidanni.org>
Cc: 36560 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#36560: Adding tags is not proof that anybody actually read
 the bug report
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2019 18:30:33 +0300

> From: 積丹尼 Dan Jacobson <jidanni <at> jidanni.org>
> Cc: 36560 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2019 23:16:34 +0800
> 
> I'm saying one could use the bts(1) command and fire off the same
> wontfix + close commands to a long list of bug numbers.

Why would you assume we do such nasty things?

Message #30 received at 36560 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: 積丹尼 Dan Jacobson <jidanni <at> jidanni.org>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 36560 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#36560: Adding tags is not proof that anybody actually read
 the bug report
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2019 23:31:23 +0800

Also on Debian, the user doesn't have to check the web to find out why a
bug was closed. Here he just gets a message that it was closed.

Message #33 received at 36560 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: 積丹尼 Dan Jacobson <jidanni <at> jidanni.org>
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, 36560 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#36560: Adding tags is not proof that anybody actually read
 the bug report
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2019 17:48:12 +0200

積丹尼 Dan Jacobson <jidanni <at> jidanni.org> writes:

> Also on Debian, the user doesn't have to check the web to find out why a
> bug was closed. Here he just gets a message that it was closed.

Sure:

M-: (gnus-read-ephemeral-emacs-bug-group 36560)

:-)

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

Message #36 received at 36560 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: 36560 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 積丹尼 Dan Jacobson <jidanni <at> jidanni.org>
Subject: Re: bug#36560: Adding tags is not proof that anybody actually read
 the bug report
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 18:47:49 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org> writes:
> > Also on Debian, the user doesn't have to check the web to find out why a
> > bug was closed. Here he just gets a message that it was closed.
>
> Sure:
>
> M-: (gnus-read-ephemeral-emacs-bug-group 36560)
>
> :-)

Nifty!  Would it perhaps be useful to add that to
etc/admin/bug-triage (see attached patch)?

Thanks,
Stefan Kangas

[0001-admin-notes-bug-triage-New-section-Tips-and-tricks-..patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

Message #39 received at 36560 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
Cc: 36560 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 積丹尼 Dan Jacobson <jidanni <at> jidanni.org>
Subject: Re: bug#36560: Adding tags is not proof that anybody actually read
 the bug report
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2019 18:54:33 +0200

Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se> writes:

> Nifty!  Would it perhaps be useful to add that to
> etc/admin/bug-triage (see attached patch)?

I think so.

> +* Tips and tricks
> +
> +** Show individual bug report in web browser.
> +
> +To see the bug report for Bug#123 in a web browser, visit the URL:
> +
> +   https://debbugs.gnu.org/123
> +
> +** Show individual bug report in Emacs.
> +
> +To display the bug report for Bug#123 in emacs:
> +
> +   (require 'gnus-group)  ; Make sure its loaded

I've now added an autoload cookie to the command so that this isn't
necessary -- it's a command that can be used without using any other
parts of Gnus, so I think that makes sense.

> +   (gnus-read-ephemeral-emacs-bug-group 123)
> +
> +This is equivalent to displaying it using the debbugs package above,
> +but only works for individual bug reports.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

Message #42 received at 36560 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: 36560 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 積丹尼 Dan Jacobson <jidanni <at> jidanni.org>
Subject: Re: bug#36560: Adding tags is not proof that anybody actually read
 the bug report
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 19:00:10 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org> writes:

> > +   (require 'gnus-group)  ; Make sure its loaded
>
> I've now added an autoload cookie to the command so that this isn't
> necessary -- it's a command that can be used without using any other
> parts of Gnus, so I think that makes sense.

Thanks.  I've attached an updated patch without the require.

Thanks,
Stefan Kangas

[0001-admin-notes-bug-triage-New-section-Tips-and-tricks-..patch (application/x-patch, attachment)]

Message #45 received at 36560 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: "Basil L. Contovounesios" <contovob <at> tcd.ie>
To: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>, 36560 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 積丹尼 Dan Jacobson <jidanni <at> jidanni.org>
Subject: Re: bug#36560: Adding tags is not proof that anybody actually read
 the bug report
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2019 22:06:56 +0100

Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se> writes:

> diff --git a/admin/notes/bug-triage b/admin/notes/bug-triage
> index 2974eee179..1170e29d2e 100644
> --- a/admin/notes/bug-triage
> +++ b/admin/notes/bug-triage
> @@ -104,3 +104,20 @@ according to the communication flow.  Red bugs mean that nobody has
>  answered, these bugs need primary attention.  Green bugs flag that
>  there is a recent communication about, and orange bugs flag that the
>  bug hasn't been touched for at least two weeks.
> +
> +* Tips and tricks
> +
> +** Show individual bug report in web browser.
> +
> +To see the bug report for Bug#123 in a web browser, visit the URL:
> +
> +   https://debbugs.gnu.org/123
> +
> +** Show individual bug report in Emacs.
> +
> +To display the bug report for Bug#123 in emacs:

Nit: The second "emacs" should probably be capitalised.

> +   (gnus-read-ephemeral-emacs-bug-group 123)

Is M-x notation preferred?  (I don't mind.)

> +This is equivalent to displaying it using the debbugs package above,
> +but only works for individual bug reports.

FWIW, the Debbugs URL format and M-x gnus-read-ephemeral-emacs-bug-group
trick are already described in admin/notes/bugtracker, which is
referenced at the start of bug-triage:

  This document just describes the procedure of triaging bugs, for
  information on how to work with the bug tracker, see the bugtracker
  file in this same directory for the basics.  You can also install the
  debbugs ELPA package for access to M-x debbugs-gnu, an emacs interface
  to debbugs, and M-x debbugs-org, an emacs interface via org-mode.

But I don't mind if bug-triage summarises the same information.

Thanks,

-- 
Basil

Message #48 received at 36560 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
To: "Basil L. Contovounesios" <contovob <at> tcd.ie>
Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>, 36560 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 積丹尼 Dan Jacobson <jidanni <at> jidanni.org>
Subject: Re: bug#36560: Adding tags is not proof that anybody actually read
 the bug report
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 02:30:11 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Basil L. Contovounesios <contovob <at> tcd.ie> writes:

> FWIW, the Debbugs URL format and M-x gnus-read-ephemeral-emacs-bug-group
> trick are already described in admin/notes/bugtracker, which is
> referenced at the start of bug-triage:

Dang, you are correct.  Maybe it's not a good idea to duplicate information
(lest one of the locations will fall out of sync with the other).

But the bugtracker file makes it sound like you need to be a Gnus user to use
M-x gnus-read-ephemeral-emacs-bug-group, which is a bit misleading.  It also
doesn't mention how to view a bug in its "Quick-start guide".

The attached patch tries to fix the above two issues by adding a new section
"How do I read a bug?" to the "Quick-start guide" with both of these methods
covered.

What do you think?

Thanks,
Stefan Kangas

[0001-Add-new-section-on-reading-a-bug-to-admin-notes-bugt.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

Message #51 received at 36560 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
Cc: "Basil L. Contovounesios" <contovob <at> tcd.ie>, 36560 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 積丹尼 Dan Jacobson <jidanni <at> jidanni.org>
Subject: Re: bug#36560: Adding tags is not proof that anybody actually read
 the bug report
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 13:45:34 +0200

Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se> writes:

> The attached patch tries to fix the above two issues by adding a new section
> "How do I read a bug?" to the "Quick-start guide" with both of these methods
> covered.
>
> What do you think?

Looks good to me; applied.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.