| (no subject) [message #696103] |
Wed, 13 July 2011 05:20  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
As asked in the title: What is the place to give feedback about Eclipse
bugtracker?
Regards,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| (no subject) [message #696279 is a reply to message #696262] |
Wed, 13 July 2011 11:49  |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
I am more interested in a discussion, then let's continue on this forum ;)
I don't think the new BugZilla pages facilitate and encourage the
reporting of a bug. Instead, it is now more difficult to find some
projects (athough some other ones are well visible, I think of SOA vs
GMP for example), so that it is more complicated for newcomers to report
a bug.
And the new report page does not encourage feature requests, the header
warning is maybe too aggressive telling people "if you are not sure of
what you're doing, don't do it". It is not very motivating, especially
for people who want to report the first bug or feature request. Some
fields are useless (buildId and steps to reproduce) when having a
feature request, whereas they are the 2 most important fields in case of
a bug.
The only advantages I see is the introduction of Steps to Reproduce and
buildId.
So the effects of this new organization may be:
* Increased quality of bug reports (good)
* Less feature requests (bad)
* Less bug reports by newcomers (bad)
Apparently that's the choice made by the Bugzilla project, but does it
fit well to Eclipse?
By the way, I think Bugzilla is now too 90's, but that's another debate ;)
--
http://mickaelistria.wordpress.com
http://twitter.com/#!/mickaelistria
http://www.petalslink.com
|
|
|
|
|
| (no subject) [message #698468 is a reply to message #696279] |
Tue, 19 July 2011 09:57 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
On 7/13/11 11:49 AM, Mickael Istria wrote:
> I am more interested in a discussion, then let's continue on this forum ;)
>
> I don't think the new BugZilla pages facilitate and encourage the
> reporting of a bug. Instead, it is now more difficult to find some
> projects (athough some other ones are well visible, I think of SOA vs
> GMP for example), so that it is more complicated for newcomers to report
> a bug.
> And the new report page does not encourage feature requests, the header
> warning is maybe too aggressive telling people "if you are not sure of
> what you're doing, don't do it". It is not very motivating, especially
> for people who want to report the first bug or feature request. Some
> fields are useless (buildId and steps to reproduce) when having a
> feature request, whereas they are the 2 most important fields in case of
> a bug.
>
> The only advantages I see is the introduction of Steps to Reproduce and
> buildId.
>
> So the effects of this new organization may be:
> * Increased quality of bug reports (good)
> * Less feature requests (bad)
> * Less bug reports by newcomers (bad)
>
> Apparently that's the choice made by the Bugzilla project, but does it
> fit well to Eclipse?
>
> By the way, I think Bugzilla is now too 90's, but that's another debate ;)
I'm not so sure that reducing bug reports by newcomers is necessarily
"bad." I'm pretty sure the goal of the guided mode for Eclipse's
Bugzilla is to increase the signal-to-noise ratio, which means reducing
noise AND increasing signal. The increasing signal part comes from, as
you noted, increased quality of the bug reports that are entered.
Reducing the noise means a few different things, but one of them is
minimizing duplication (the entering of already-recorded bugs). Another
way to reduce noise is to minimize bug reports that are incoherent or
otherwise not practically addressable. I think a reasonable theory is
that newbies, if not guided properly, might tend to contribute to that
kind of noise.
As far as feature requests go, I've certainly entered my share of them
but never noticed a problem. But that may be because I don't get the
guided UI.
Eric
[Updated on: Thu, 21 July 2011 10:00] by Moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| (no subject) [message #699447 is a reply to message #699417] |
Thu, 21 July 2011 10:34 |
 Eclipse Webmaster
Messages: 607353
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
On 07/21/2011 10:03 AM, Eric Rizzo wrote:
> What?! That's explicitly against the Eclipse philosophy. In fact, if
> that was in fact the sole reason then some heads need to roll. That's
> not the way Eclipse does things; it's the opposite of how Eclipse does
> things.
Like Mickael said, employer committer agreement are tied to an employer
(legally). When one changes an employer, they need a new employer
agreement. If the employer declines, the committer must sign an
individual committer agreement.
Regardless, without a valid agreement in place, commit rights must be
stripped temporarily.
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.55632 seconds
Home