the utter failure of bugzilla (and us?)

Martin Gräßlin mgraesslin at
Thu Jun 2 08:50:44 CEST 2011

On Wednesday 01 June 2011 19:33:29 todd rme wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Aaron J. Seigo <aseigo at> wrote:
> > On Monday, May 30, 2011 01:06:07 you wrote:
> >> * Voting: Only allow if every user has just one vote per bug or use a
> >> different system
> >
> > voting is useless. no matter the system, it is too easy to skew the results by
> > "promoting" your pet bug on,,, irc
> > ... all places we see that happening.
> >
> > "votes" in the form of duplicate reports is usually far more telling, ime.
> This seems to be encouraging users to post duplicates whenever
> possible.  Aren't we trying to avoid duplicates?
> Your approach means that if someone is trying to be a good community
> member and searching diligently for other similar bugs before posting
> theirs, they are actually discouraging the fixing of their bug.  They
> would be more likely to get their bug fixed if they intentionally made
> a duplicate.
> I would think telling users that duplicates are the best way to get
> their bug fixed would just lead to people asking others to duplicate
> their pet bug rather than vote for it, so the same problem would exist
> but the damage to bko would be far worse.
Yes possible, but that could easily be recognized (the same way as we notice that people 
are asked for voting) and I would say that it would be totally fine to block the accounts of 
whoever asks for reporting duplicates.

For me currently also the duplicates are a better indication than votes, but I don't tell the 
users. In the end each developer probably has a different metric to decide which bugs are 
important. Users cannot know all of them.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : 

More information about the Plasma-devel mailing list