You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to qa@openoffice.apache.org by Arrigo Marchiori <ar...@yahoo.it.INVALID> on 2021/02/11 08:03:17 UTC
Duplicate bugs: shall we follow strict chronological order?
Dear All,
I want to mark some duplicate bugs and I have a question.
Suppose the bugs are numbered 2, 4, and 6. I have been working on
number 4, because I did not know about number 2. For this reason,
number 4 has more comments on BugZilla and my GitHub PR refers to it.
I will declare that no. 6 is a duplicate, because it was reported
afterwards.
Can I indicate that no. 2 is a duplicate of no. 4 even if it was
reported before, although according to a strict time-based logic it
should be the opposite (i.e. that no. 4 is a duplicate of no. 2)?
The reason I believe it would be better to flag no. 2 as duplicated of
no. 4 is because report no. 4 contains much more data about the
problem and IMHO it should ``stand out'' with respect to the others.
Thank you in advance for your guidance,
--
Arrigo
http://rigo.altervista.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Duplicate bugs: shall we follow strict chronological order?
Posted by Arrigo Marchiori <ar...@yahoo.it.INVALID>.
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 09:46:03AM +0100, Marcus wrote:
> Am 11.02.21 um 09:03 schrieb Arrigo Marchiori:
> > I want to mark some duplicate bugs and I have a question.
>
> for your example, see comments inline.
>
> > Suppose the bugs are numbered 2, 4, and 6. I have been working on
> > number 4, because I did not know about number 2. For this reason,
> > number 4 has more comments on BugZilla and my GitHub PR refers to it.
> >
> > I will declare that no. 6 is a duplicate, because it was reported
> > afterwards.
>
> yes
>
> > Can I indicate that no. 2 is a duplicate of no. 4 even if it was
> > reported before, although according to a strict time-based logic it
> > should be the opposite (i.e. that no. 4 is a duplicate of no. 2)?
>
> Yes
>
> > The reason I believe it would be better to flag no. 2 as duplicated of
> > no. 4 is because report no. 4 contains much more data about the
> > problem and IMHO it should ``stand out'' with respect to the others.
>
> +1
>
> In general:
>
> Following the chronological order is the right thing. This means the oldest
> issue will remain when all others are decribing the same problem.
>
> Exceptions (of course ;-)):
>
> The respective issue should survive when:
> - it has the most helpful comments
> - it already has a doc to reproduce the problem
> - it has already a reference to SVN / Git / GitHub ...
> - it has the most votes, or links to "see also" issues
> - it has in general most helpful data.
>
> That means chronological yes, but maybe it makes sense to use another issue
> when it is more helpful and then close all others as duplicate.
>
> > Thank you in advance for your guidance,
>
> I hope this is helpful for you.
> That's the way I'm doing it.
Very helpful! Thank you.
Best regards,
--
Arrigo
http://rigo.altervista.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Duplicate bugs: shall we follow strict chronological order?
Posted by Czesław Wolański <cz...@gmail.com>.
Hi Arrigo, Marcus,
@Arrigo
Thanks for bringing this up.
@Marcus
Thank you for this extensive explanation.
It will surely help me a lot in my bug hunting tusks - ykwim. ;‑)
"Exception that proves the rule".
Regards,
Czesław
чт, 11 февр. 2021 г. в 09:46, Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de>:
> Am 11.02.21 um 09:03 schrieb Arrigo Marchiori:
> > I want to mark some duplicate bugs and I have a question.
>
> for your example, see comments inline.
>
> > Suppose the bugs are numbered 2, 4, and 6. I have been working on
> > number 4, because I did not know about number 2. For this reason,
> > number 4 has more comments on BugZilla and my GitHub PR refers to it.
> >
> > I will declare that no. 6 is a duplicate, because it was reported
> > afterwards.
>
> yes
>
> > Can I indicate that no. 2 is a duplicate of no. 4 even if it was
> > reported before, although according to a strict time-based logic it
> > should be the opposite (i.e. that no. 4 is a duplicate of no. 2)?
>
> Yes
>
> > The reason I believe it would be better to flag no. 2 as duplicated of
> > no. 4 is because report no. 4 contains much more data about the
> > problem and IMHO it should ``stand out'' with respect to the others.
>
> +1
>
> In general:
>
> Following the chronological order is the right thing. This means the
> oldest issue will remain when all others are decribing the same problem.
>
> Exceptions (of course ;-)):
>
> The respective issue should survive when:
> - it has the most helpful comments
> - it already has a doc to reproduce the problem
> - it has already a reference to SVN / Git / GitHub ...
> - it has the most votes, or links to "see also" issues
> - it has in general most helpful data.
>
> That means chronological yes, but maybe it makes sense to use another
> issue when it is more helpful and then close all others as duplicate.
>
> > Thank you in advance for your guidance,
>
> I hope this is helpful for you.
> That's the way I'm doing it.
>
> Marcus
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: qa-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Re: Duplicate bugs: shall we follow strict chronological order?
Posted by Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 11.02.21 um 09:03 schrieb Arrigo Marchiori:
> I want to mark some duplicate bugs and I have a question.
for your example, see comments inline.
> Suppose the bugs are numbered 2, 4, and 6. I have been working on
> number 4, because I did not know about number 2. For this reason,
> number 4 has more comments on BugZilla and my GitHub PR refers to it.
>
> I will declare that no. 6 is a duplicate, because it was reported
> afterwards.
yes
> Can I indicate that no. 2 is a duplicate of no. 4 even if it was
> reported before, although according to a strict time-based logic it
> should be the opposite (i.e. that no. 4 is a duplicate of no. 2)?
Yes
> The reason I believe it would be better to flag no. 2 as duplicated of
> no. 4 is because report no. 4 contains much more data about the
> problem and IMHO it should ``stand out'' with respect to the others.
+1
In general:
Following the chronological order is the right thing. This means the
oldest issue will remain when all others are decribing the same problem.
Exceptions (of course ;-)):
The respective issue should survive when:
- it has the most helpful comments
- it already has a doc to reproduce the problem
- it has already a reference to SVN / Git / GitHub ...
- it has the most votes, or links to "see also" issues
- it has in general most helpful data.
That means chronological yes, but maybe it makes sense to use another
issue when it is more helpful and then close all others as duplicate.
> Thank you in advance for your guidance,
I hope this is helpful for you.
That's the way I'm doing it.
Marcus
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-help@openoffice.apache.org