Systemd catches up with bind events

Posted Nov 16, 2020 12:21 UTC (Mon) by hkario (subscriber, #94864)
In reply to: Systemd catches up with bind events by k3ninho
Parent article: Systemd catches up with bind events

put yourself in the developers boots for a minute:

you get a bug report, you look at the experienced behaviour, you haven't encountered it before; you try it with your hardware, it's not reproducible; you look at code that *may* be related, it doesn't seem possible to trigger this kind of behaviour

now, what on earth can you do more than to ask for more information?

Developers aren't omniscient and omnipotent entities that exist beyond confines of space and time, entities that fix bugs based only on a fickle. They're human, and they need to understand the bug before they can fix it.

Systemd catches up with bind events

Posted Nov 16, 2020 17:59 UTC (Mon) by jezuch (subscriber, #52988) [Link] (7 responses)

You create a unit/regression test which mocks hardware to behave the way described by the bug reporter? Consult the spec to confirm that this is a valid use case? Just saying "works for me" is being a horrible maintainer.

Systemd catches up with bind events

Posted Nov 16, 2020 18:30 UTC (Mon) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (6 responses)

> Just saying "works for me" is being a horrible maintainer.

That wasn't what was said however. There was a question back on what makes the hardware different which seems to have gone unanswered. Given the wide variations in hardware, this is a reasonable question.

Systemd catches up with bind events

Posted Nov 20, 2020 15:16 UTC (Fri) by k3ninho (subscriber, #50375) [Link] (5 responses)

>> Just saying "works for me" is being a horrible maintainer.

>That wasn't what was said however.

It wasn't *exactly* what was said but it was the spirit of what was said.

K3n.

Systemd catches up with bind events

Posted Nov 20, 2020 15:45 UTC (Fri) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (4 responses)

> It wasn't *exactly* what was said but it was the spirit of what was said.

I don't agree but even assuming that, works for me is a fine thing to say if you don't stop at that point. There was a query for more information. It's up to the reporter to pursue that further

Systemd catches up with bind events

Posted Nov 20, 2020 20:08 UTC (Fri) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link] (3 responses)

The key is to coax out the difference in the setup from the reporter. I find it hard to get relevant details from reporters sometimes. I know what I'm looking for, but reporters will sometimes trim output to what they think is important, missing the actual details that are relevant to diagnosing the problem. Screenshots instead of copy/pasted text are also a thing.

It's about communication. I certainly have more to learn on this front, but part of it is realizing the differences in knowledge and expectations on either side of the wire.

Systemd catches up with bind events - works for me

Posted Nov 21, 2020 19:14 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (guest, #1954) [Link] (2 responses)

This thread is either about someone's serious misinterpretation of the "works for me" response as, "this is your problem; go away" or a misnaming of that actual response.

"Works for me" is a request for more information or diagnostic work.

But I've also been the recipient of the response, "What you're doing is too unusual for me to care about. Do what I do, and it will work." Many times. I'm creative. I suppose someone might characterize that as "works for me."

Systemd catches up with bind events - works for me

Posted Nov 28, 2020 9:21 UTC (Sat) by jezuch (subscriber, #52988) [Link] (1 responses)

I guess there's a subtle difference between "works for me" and "can't reproduce". I, as the bug report responder, would never say the former as it souds kind of dismissive. Like in, "i reproduced your exact environment and it works for me". The latter admits that you're probably missing some context that makes the reproduction impossible.

But other people will feel differently about this.

Systemd catches up with bind events - works for me

Posted Nov 28, 2020 19:29 UTC (Sat) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

How you say things can be so important ...

"Can't reproduce" implies you have tried to replicate the error, you've put in a bit of effort to help the person with the problem.

"Works for me", on the other hand, *could* mean the same thing. It could also mean "I don't suffer that problem, so I can't be bothered to look for it".

And then there's the language problem. I'm probably known for being a bit prickly about language and how, even when you may think you're speaking the "same" language, the identical word may mean different things based on the speaker's background.

Cheers,
Wol