Version: (using KDE 4.2.3) Installed from: Ubuntu Packages Currently bugzilla mail includes just the bug title and the newest comment or change to the bug. Often this is not enough useful information to decide if I need to open the bug to comment or perform some other action. Please include the associated component. Thanks.
Note that there are various details already provided in form of email headers.
> Note that there are various details already > provided in form of email headers. Opening the bug in the browser is easier than opening the mail source!
Is this a duplicate of #224215 ?
> Is this a duplicate of #224215 ? > It is. Thanks, Jekyll! *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 224215 ***
Dotan, I thought you understood English. You should look up the word "duplicate", which should lead you to understand that this bug is the first instance, which means bug 224215 is the duplicate, not this. The age of the bug is misreported by nearly 8 months to any who don't bother to open the so-called duplicate. It also means subscribers to the original are stuck with subscriptions to a dead bug, which means they must take action to add or move their CCs to keep apprised of activity.
> Dotan, I thought you understood English. > I think that instead of a language barrier the issue is that the later bug is further developed, with more activity and more subscribers. I can think of quite a few instances in BKO in which the earlier bug is marked as a dupe of the later bug. > It also means subscribers to the original are stuck with > subscriptions to a dead bug, which means they must take action > to add or movetheir CCs to keep apprised of activity. > Would that not be the case with either bug being marked as dupe? In fact, by marking this (lesser activity) bug as the dupe, I've inconvenienced less people, not more. By the way, BKO automatically subscribes me to bugs when a bug that I'm subscribed to is marked as dupe. Would you like me to review my BKO settings to check what you can do to enable this? I believe that it is the default behaviour as I do not recall ever editing any of those options.
(In reply to comment #6) > > Dotan, I thought you understood English. > I think that instead of a language barrier the issue is that the later bug is > further developed, with more activity and more subscribers. I can think of The newer bug you filed instead of finding this in the first place has multiple off topic comments. Most of the remainder of its comments are your own. > quite a few instances in BKO in which the earlier bug is marked as a dupe of > the later bug. Patch writers often don't bother searching for existing bugs, preferring to file their own to attach the patch to and let triagers worry about dupe management. While in many cases the later is more developed, deference should always be given the elder when they differ little as between these two. > > It also means subscribers to the original are stuck with > > subscriptions to a dead bug, which means they must take action > > to add or movetheir CCs to keep apprised of activity. > Would that not be the case with either bug being marked as dupe? In fact, by > marking this (lesser activity) bug as the dupe, I've inconvenienced less > people, not more. Your bug, not counting off topic commenters, has fewer unique persons making comments, and in the instant case, the earlier bug has two subs, while the latter has one, a pittance of a difference, and yet another reason to defer to the earlier. Those with the diligence to subscribe to the original bug report should not be penalized for their diligence. Do you not understand the age of bug concept? Nobody cares how much newer is the later filed bug, as it has nothing to do with age of the problem or enhancement request. > By the way, BKO automatically subscribes me to bugs when a bug that I'm > subscribed to is marked as dupe. Would you like me to review my BKO settings to > check what you can do to enable this? I believe that it is the default > behaviour as I do not recall ever editing any of those options. I only get sub'd automatically to bugs I file, and to any bugs I've filed that get turned into dupes. It's very _highly_ annoying when the latter happens because my earlier filed bug gets dup'd to a latter, and I'm sure I'm not the only recurring filer (across about a dozen bug trackers, not just this) who feels this way. Had I filed this, I would have without hesitation reopened this and dup'd yours to it.
Felix, if the issue is so passionate for you then I have no problem with marking the other bug as a dupe of this one. I choose my battles a bit more carefully! I'll mark it now. > Patch writers often don't bother searching for existing bugs, preferring to > file their own to attach the patch to and let triagers worry about dupe > management. That may be so, but I'm actually referring to as-yet-unfixed bugs. > Your bug, not counting off topic commenters, has fewer unique persons making > comments, and in the instant case, the earlier bug has two subs, while the > latter has one, a pittance of a difference, and yet another reason to defer to > the earlier. They are both "my" bugs! Subs, as in subscribers? I did not even notice. > Do you not understand the age of bug concept? Nobody cares how much newer is > the later filed bug, as it has nothing to do with age of the problem or > enhancement request. Actually, I don't understand the age of bug concept. I've actually never heard of it. I know from experience that some critical issues can go years without being fixed, while trivial bugs and enhancements can be taken care of in days or even hours. If you are implying that older bugs get preference, then I've never heard that expressed nor seen it in practice. In any case, I appreciate your input and I appreciate you triaging issues. I respect your opinion.
*** Bug 224215 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
(In reply to comment #8) > They are both "my" bugs! So they are. :-p All the more reason to defer to the elder! > Actually, I don't understand the age of bug concept. I've actually never heard > of it. I know from experience that some critical issues can go years without > being fixed, while trivial bugs and enhancements can be taken care of in days > or even hours. If you are implying that older bugs get preference, then I've > never heard that expressed nor seen it in practice. Age can enter into a patch writer's or bug owner's prioritization process, not to mention statistical analysis of tracker activity. Someone who wishes to attack oldest first (FIFO) is easily mislead when older are dup'd to latter. Age is often mentioned in complaints and discussion about what does or doesn't get fixed, particularly WRT new features vs. fixing longstanding problems. Date is also a Bugzilla optional search criteria. cf.: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=277997 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=633188
bugs.kde.org now sends out mail with subject in the form like "[plasma] [Bug 301791] activity linked files are not shown after system restart " ( see bug 97066) . Can this report be seen as fixed and closed ?
The subject of the very mail that sent me here: [bugs.kde.org] [Bug 194969] Bugzilla mail updates should show to which Product the bug belongs I don't see any option in the preferences for changing this. I'll try the HTML mails, but the plain text mails certainly do not include the product.
(In reply to comment #12) > The subject of the very mail that sent me here: > [bugs.kde.org] [Bug 194969] Bugzilla mail updates should show to which > Product the bug belongs > > I don't see any option in the preferences for changing this. I'll try the > HTML mails, but the plain text mails certainly do not include the product. I'm confused. "the plain text mails certainly do not include the product", but your received mail subjuect just contain the product this report belongs to : "bugs.kde.org" .
You are right, bugs.kde.org _is_ the product for this one! Marking as fixed, thanks!