Who is that code for?

Posted Jul 2, 2011 19:54 UTC (Sat) by bronson (subscriber, #4806)
In reply to: Who is that code for? by mjg59
Parent article: Who is that code for?

Those situations are quite different, no?

The kernel discourages external modules and makes an effort to merge the ones even a few people use.

Gnome has been encouraging external modules and doesn't appear to have any intention of ever merging them. (going by what I read in the discussions)

Who is that code for?

Posted Jul 2, 2011 20:26 UTC (Sat) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (8 responses)

It's equivalent from the point of view of bug reporting.

Who is that code for?

Posted Jul 2, 2011 20:39 UTC (Sat) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (7 responses)

Only if you consider it acceptable to blow off all bug reports from users who happen to be using any modules. With a GNOME panel as featureless as it now is, that's not going to leave very many people who can submit bug reports that'll be accepted.

(This also would mean that if distributions install any modules by default, that they would have to commit to fixing all bugs in the panel that their users report themselves, without involving upstream. Since this is not going to be practical for the vast majority of distributions, it either means that the module system will be almost unused, or that distributions will have to throw away a lot of bug reports, or that GNOME *will* have to accept reports from module users.)

Who is that code for?

Posted Jul 2, 2011 20:46 UTC (Sat) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (6 responses)

Ensuring that a bug is reproducible without extensions being involved is a pretty basic part of tracking it down, and I think that's true of all projects that involve third party addons.

Who is that code for?

Posted Jul 3, 2011 20:28 UTC (Sun) by elanthis (guest, #6227) [Link] (5 responses)

His point is that he believes GNOME 3 is going to have a very high concentration of add-on users, where as most projects have a very low concentration of add-on users.

For instance, my kernel has at most ever had one non-standard module installed, for GPU support when the FOSS drivers outright failed to support the hardware. The vast majority of the time, my Linux kernels are pure. Bug reports them from me are not going to be rejected on grounds of taintedness. I'm willing to bet that most Linux users are in the same boat. If a sizable portion of GNOME 3 users are installing a half-dozen modules to fix an assortment of minor annoyances then a sizable portion of GNOME 3 users will not be able to submit bugs.

Especially when it comes to end-user software, it's valuable to move the effort onto the developers, not the end users. That in part is why Bugzilla is an abomination unto FOSS (go through fifty steps, including account creation and verification, to file "The about dialog spelled 'GNOEM' wrong"). Requiring users to create test cases because the developers are too lazy to do their damn job is also a problem. It's one that makes sense in an Open Source as a hobby world, but in a world where projects have foundations and paid marketing teams and are obviously backed by large commercial ventures, it's just wrong.

Who is that code for?

Posted Jul 3, 2011 22:07 UTC (Sun) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

That in part is why Bugzilla is an abomination unto FOSS (go through fifty steps, including account creation and verification, to file "The about dialog spelled 'GNOEM' wrong").

Oh look, it's a quote for next week's LWN :)

Who is that code for?

Posted Jul 4, 2011 1:17 UTC (Mon) by jrn (subscriber, #64214) [Link] (1 responses)

> Requiring users to create test cases because the developers are too lazy to do their damn job is also a problem.

Am I the only one who finds developers saying I have no clue whats causing that; heres some information that might be useful but your best bet is to come up with a reproduction recipe so I can investigate it on my end to be comfortingly honest?

Who is that code for?

Posted Jul 5, 2011 20:26 UTC (Tue) by elanthis (guest, #6227) [Link]

As a very last resort? Sure.

A dev can't fix a problem they can't reproduce. A dev also can't fix a problem they don't even try to reproduce, though. :)

Who is that code for?

Posted Jul 7, 2011 20:43 UTC (Thu) by ovitters (guest, #27950) [Link]

1. Bugzilla is not meant for end users. It is a developer tool. End users can file bugs if they wish to do so, but it still remains a developer tool. A lot of effort is done to ensure end users still can use Bugzilla (bugsquad and so on).

2. It does not take 50 steps to file a bug on (GNOME) bugzilla

3. Support should be done by a support team. If developers provide support, awesome. If not: unfortunate, but too bad.

4. Calling things hobby and so on is a bit strange. If you require support, shop around for it. There are various options for support.

5. Not sure if you meant this, so just clarifying to be sure: GNOME is not commercial, not run by commercial organisations, etc.

I'm an inactive Bugzilla developer and GNOME bugmaster btw.

Re: who should do the testing for the bugs?

Posted Jul 8, 2011 21:00 UTC (Fri) by oak (guest, #2786) [Link]

> Especially when it comes to end-user software, it's valuable to move the effort onto the developers, not the end users. [...] Requiring users to create test cases because the developers are too lazy to do their damn job is also a problem.

Valuable how and to whom?

If some software has, say thousand users per one developer, how it's valuable for developer to spend all his/her time trying to reproduce those thousand users' potential issues, instead of actually developing the software, improving its test-suite and fixing real bugs?

If user doesn't have a test-case, how developer is able to know that s/he managed to reproduce the "right" issue? And that his/her code change actually fixed the user's issue?

Most likely the user doesn't anymore even respond when developer finally has time to look at the bug. -> Bugs (or complaints) without proper test-cases or e.g. crash information that directly points out the problem, are just waste of everybody's time.