[Feedback] What did you do with Amarok?

[Eric Altendorf]

On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Jeff Mitchell<mitchell at kde.org> wrote:
> Eric Altendorf wrote:
>> Oh, I am completely sure that 90% of the reports you get are total crap.
>>
>> However, if there is no channel for people to submit real bug reports,
>> or if they are all assumed to be crap like the rest, then what is the
>> point in a bug report system at all?  Why waste your time pretending
>> to read the reports?
>
> Define "real" bug reports. Everyone thinks that theirs is real,
> including you.
>
> https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=198857 has been open less than a
> month. I don't really see why this is at all an unreasonable amount of
> time to wait for a fix -- actually, considering that it's volunteer
> software development, no amount of time is unreasonable...but I digress.
>
> Your bug report is likely a duplicate of one of at least three reports
> out there for the same problem. Assuming it's the same problem, which it
> very likely is, your bug report was opened after the problem was already
> fixed (which means your own bug report isn't "real", but I digress again).

Alright -- your most recent update to the bug might make sense, and as
I have mentioned on this thread, I haven't seen the problem in the
past week or two (I'll have to wait til I get back home to check which
exact version of Amarok I'm on at the moment).

FWIW, when I was having the problem, I did switch back and forth
between A14 and A2 multiple times, I cleared the A2 database and
forced full rescans of the collection, etc., and always saw the same
thing: A14 worked fine and A2 had specific tracks for which it failed
to obtain correct metadata.

The caching issue seems a bit weird, since I would see a failure to
read FLAC metadata when picking arbitrary files from disc (go to
files, navigate to a directory, right click on a file and view full
information).  I guess I assumed that when I did that Amarok was
loading information directly from the file, but it's possible that it
was loading it from a cache since the file was theoretically supposed
to be in my collection (though it was invisible since it had no
metadata).

I will update the bug with more info when I can.

Thanks much,

--eric

> But this illustrates a very important point, which is that bug reports
> lie, and relying on them to be accurate and up-to-date with regards to
> the status of the described problems is not really valid. (In some
> cases, even assuming that it's actually a bug, instead of something like
> PEBKAC on the part of the reporter, is not a good assumption either.) It
> makes an assumption that the right person saw each of these (duplicate)
> bug reports. Speaking as the right person for this particular problem, I
> can tell you that I never saw it before today, while you've been sitting
> there stewing for a month thinking "man, when are they going to fix this
> bug?" while the fix has been sitting in our code repository. This may
> lead you to think "well why didn't he see this report before?" -- and
> the answer goes back to the 90%-are-total-crap/duplicates metric,
> cluttering up bugzilla. If I tried to see every one of those, I'd never
> have a chance to code.
>
> I don't actually have a solution to this -- feel free to suggest one (in
> a separate thread or private email). But I wanted to give you that
> "glimpse" into how things work (and how things don't work, as the case
> may be).
>
> --Jeff
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Amarok mailing list
> Amarok at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok
>
>