Slashdot Mirror
Submitting Bug Reports To Open Source Projects?
aldheorte writes "After installing Red Hat Linux 8.0, I discovered some minor bugs. Some of these are with software actively maintained by Red Hat (e.g. redhat-config-date), but some are not (e.g. gaim). Although it is possible to enter bugs for any package at Red Hat Bugzilla, some of these packages have zero bugs, which probably indicates this is not a preferred method of receiving bugs for that project. In fact, I've found this to be the case for for several project. I find no listed bugs for Red Hat's Bugzilla and a whole database of bugs at another site, such as SourceForge. There are many distributions and channels for open source projects to reach the end user, so how do users, especially non-technical ones, effectively submit bug reports to the right database? How do open source projects make it easier for users to submit bug reports and consolidate the bugs in a single database?" Update: 11/01 11pm EDT by C :Don't know why this was sitting under the "HP" topic, so I've changed it to something more appropriate. Sorry if this has resulted in any confusion.
With most of the large Linux distributions, maintainers (sometimes multiple) act as liaisons between users and "upstream" authors. Case in point: Debian GNU/Linux, where each package is maintained by at least one maintainer. You, the user, submit a bug report to BTS, where the maintainer collects further information and passes it along upstream. (That was the simplified version.) Ultimately extra patches or bugfixes, etc. may be rolled into upstream's source. Bugs are closed in BTS. Behold the power of source. ;-)
This story has the HP logo for an icon, while it's not about HP at all.
I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
read the man pages. usually there's contact info for the maintainer of the actual program. also, always file the bug with your vendor as well, so they have a chance to upgrade their shipping versions.
-BlueLines
--BlueLines "The cost of living hasn't affected it's popularity." -anonymous
Well, the bug should be filed with the person with whom the responsibility lies. Examples:
Redhat configuration utility: Redhat
Gaim: Gaim
Gaim packaging by Redhat: Redhat
Gaim packaging by gaim: gaim
(I don't know (or care) who makes the RPMs)
The only problem is a conflict.. say... gaim doesn't compile with, say, GCC. Then, the task would be to determine if gaim is non-compliant, or if gcc is non-compliant (or both). In that case, if I don't want (or don't know enough) to track it down, I'd file both.
-- Is "Sig" copyrighted by www.sig.com?
The answer however is simple, most of the gui apps include info on their orgins. Following that information will lead you to the right place. The commandline apps typically have information on their origins in the man pages for the app, so thats usually the best way to go in thats case.
The alternative is of course look up the package on freshmeat (http://www.freshmeat.org). That will definatively lead you to the developer of record for the software.
All else fails google it of course.
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
so how do users, especially non-technical ones, effectively submit bug reports
;)
I get the lucky job of also providing tech support for the software I write. I get a lot of users calling up and saying "I got an error printing a report", which leaves me having to ask, "which of the 50 reports and what does the error say". At that point the customer needs to walk back to his office and turn on his computer since he thought I could magically solve the problem without any information and remotely control the little gnomes in his machine and instruct them to magically fix it.
How many open source developers, most of which develop the software for free, want to deal with people that are not technically savvy enough to read the documentation for the software to figure out where to submit bugs to?
Of course, I'm not an open source developer so maybe they like dealing with dumb users and I'm just talking out my ass. It's happened before
Well you should really be sending your bug reports to HP. That way they'll be fixed....
You can submit bugs to almost any project with the unix move command (mv)
- Make a text file with your favorite editor.
- Be sure to name the text file with a good summary
- Edit the text file to include the version of the software you are using, a long description of the bug, and any other relevant information
- Submit the report with the command: mv <file>
/dev/null
See, its all in one place and its easy!Might as well since we already hear about every minor software release anyway.
If a bug is major or affects security I will also mention it to the authors, especially if I'm feeling non-lazy and have reproduced the bug with the standard sources. And, of course, if I am using some software I built myself from the original sources, I will report the bug directly to the maintainer in all cases rather than my distribution vendor.
As a software author, it's often annoying when a distributor applies patches to software that add, remove, or change feature sets and may introduce additional bugs. Some maintainers will definitely not be willing to help you at all with packages built by others for this reason. Linux is a fine example - try asking sometime about the Red Hat kernel on LKML. Be prepared for flames and/or silence - after Red Hat applies their 500 patches nobody on that list will be willing even to look at your problem.
How do open source projects make it easier for users to submit bug reports and consolidate the bugs in a single database?"
:-)
I go to "Help" -> "Report Bug". That's it. Wow, the amazing advantages of an standardizing desktop system
In this case it's KDE and it helps me to find bugs.kde.org very conveniently.
Participating in a free software project requires a certain amount of work. Part of the bug submitter's job is making sure that the bug they submit hasn't been submitted 400 times already, or worse yet isn't a FAQ. Bugzilla is a nifty tool, but if the users fill it full of crap because they can't waste their precious time doing a little research then Bugzilla becomes more of a hindrance than a help. After all, if the information in Bugzilla is crap, then it just wastes developer time and makes the project look bad because of the amount of bugs, most of which are bogus.
I imagine that nearly any Free Software hacker would fix your bug if you did your homework beforehand and made sure that it wasn't a duplicate bug. If you provide a simple test case that shows the bug your chances improve dramatically, and if you provide a patch then you might even get your name in the credits.
The fact of the matter is that bad code is better than no code. Otherwise you wouldn't be using a Free Software project that had bugs in it :). The good news is that over time, with enough user testing, all code becomes good code.
The most important thing you need to do when submitting a bug report is to give your name and email address. 90% of the time, the author or maintainer will need some extra piece of information from you that you forgot to include.
I'm the lead developer for Audacity, and we get lots of anonymous bugs submitted on our SourceForge bug tracker. Clearly the ones that just say "I tried to use your program but it crashed..." are not at all helpful, but sometimes even people who try to give a very detailed report don't include the one useful piece of information we need to track it down! So please identify yourself. We'll contact you for more information.
To be honest, we're thinking seriously of shutting down the bug tracker for our project on Sourceforge. It's generally far more efficient when people submit the bug to the mailing list, and IF it's valid, one of the developers adds it to our bugs.txt file. Low-tech? Yes, but far more efficient considering we don't have any full-time developers.
I think the big challenge in open source today is enabling the *easy* interaction between developers and users. The interaction right now is just too costly for both parties. My cut would be that there needs to be further development of automated system slike Mozilla's talkback and that this type of bug reporting should become a *fundamental* aspect of Open Source Development. The current problem with talkback is that it only works for crashes. It would be nice if you had some sort of built-in interaction recording functionality that would allow people to click a button to send a brief playback along with a description of what they did not like.
I have given up on submitting bugs through bugzilla (not just complaints, I give what it must be like for developers below):
1. You have to log in. Sometimes the registration process requires a lot of information or hand shaking emails. It's an impediment.
2. You have to search for your bug. How are you going to find it? It's not a google-like search engine. You have to count on people submitting the bug with a description that you will understand.
3. You have to spend a lot of time describing your bug. What if others don't understand it? What if the developer does not understand it?
From a developer's perspective:
1. They are only getting the perspective of the ardent few. Will that help them expand the user base and make the project a success? Possibly not, since the majority of people who have problems might just give up.
2. Will they understand what people have described?
3. Will they be able to reproduce the bug? Do they have the configuration to do so?
Just my two cents,
Bud
I am actually thinking that a news-group type system of bug reporting is almost better than a standard bug reporting tool lime Mozilla because other people can then comment etc. on the bug.
The best bug-fix help I have ever seen has been through email lists because the peer support is very good and then if no one has heard of it, a bug report is filed. I have seen this happen on the Samba lists.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
There is the weird notion that with Open Source software, there is such a thing as users and developers and that the users are somehow customers to the developers.
Anyone who uses a piece of Open Source software is a developer of that software. It's the nature of Open Source software. That's the price you pay for using the software. The "user" is just as responsible for product quality as the author.
Keep this in mind when you want to submit a bug report. If you take a consumer mentality and simply say, "Feature x doesn't work like feature y does in program z," you will be ignored; as you deserve to be.
Instead, try to do the most you can do to fix the problem. Isolate the problem, figure out what are all the constraints that it occurs under. If you have worked with code before, take a look at the code and see what's going on. Then once you've reached your limit, if the problem still isn't fixed, transition what you've learned to another developer.
The last thing you should ever do is send a frantic "URGENT" bug-report.
int func(int a);
func((b += 3, b));
Ugh. Bad idea (tm).
The bug may be urgent for you (although in most cases you can find a work-around); it's almost certainly NOT urgent for the author. Don't construe your emergency as my priority.
And definitely don't email more than once: the author will attend to your problem as soon as he can, and no sooner. Probably later if you're pestering him.
That said, I've been lucky enough to have had really great response when I've submitted bugs in open source software. Perhaps I'm just lucky, but let me suggest a few reasons for that luck:
I've always made a point of thanking the author for his work (that is, the software, buggy or not, that I'm running for free and with full source), and telling him how useful it is to me (if it wasn't useful, why'd I care about a bug?).
I acknowledge, before I ask him to do more work for me, that I am asking him to work for free to solve my problem, and I appreciate it and realize what an undertaking it might be.
I try to make it easy for the author to figure out just what I'm talking about, by providing version numbers; descriptions of -- or better -- actual buggy output; my OS and its version(s); program state that appears to trigger the bug; etc.
I take a (cursory, at least) look at the source code, enough to possibly suggest where the problem might lie, attempt some diagnostic if possible, and note that if need be, I'll fix the bug myself (if the source is C, C++, or java). (In other words, I implicitly note that I'm willing to bear the burden I'm asking of him, and also that I'm not completely ignorant about coding.)
So far, this has gotten good response -- as in emails answered within hours, even from authors on other continents, and resolutions in hours or days.
The author of Scintilla/SciTE (an excellent GUI source editor), Neil Hodgson, even went so far as to download updated mouse-drivers to his own box, to better diagnose my problem, and probably spent at minimum four hours on my issue the first night I emailed him. On my part, I looked up some API calls and scanned his code to suggest where the fix might go, and suggested what the fix might be.
With his help, I was able to recompile (his makefile worked right out of the box to my great joy!) my own fix by the next day; he had the fix in with his next regular release.
Albert Faber, author of CDex, was similarly helpful, even though my "bug" hardly was a show-stopper: full song-lyric annotations to playlist text weren't being saved correcly in the local cddb. Herr Faber got back to me in at most a day, acknowledged the bug, and had a fix out in his next release -- and I did little more than make some poor suggestions about what might be causing the error.
I go on at such length, and I apologize for it, to convince you that the best way to get bugs fixed is to step up to the plate and be willing to do your part, while letting the author know that you know how much he has done for you, and how much more he'll be doing if he fixes your bug.
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
Distributions do a great job redistributing stuff, but don't do a great job working with the package authors themselves. The net-snmp package is an extremely hard one to maintain, for we support a really large number of operating systems for code which is very operating system sensitive (the architecture ifdefs in some portions of the code will drive you mad. Trust me.) net-snmp is redistrubuted through a number of distributions, and let me tell you that almost no bug reports get to us that are entered into distribution bug tracking databases. It's a nightmare, and because we can't continously search other bug databases for problems, we frequently are left out.
To make matters worse, the distributions often fix things. RedHat and other RPM packages simply roll their own patches into their redistribution and don't send it to us. FreeBSD has a ports tree that contains patches for projects that the projects themselves may have never seen.
I'll never forget the first time I opend the source rpm of the net-snmp package from redhat. There were 3 patches in it that I had never seen for bugs I didn't even know about. Why hadn't I heard of them? because the RedHat package maintainers didn't notify us that they had fixed something.
Finally, what's even worse is that all of the RedHat source RPMs are GPLed. Our package uses a BSD license and thus we can't pull the patches out of the RPMs and apply them to our source without getting explicit permission to re-license it.
The proper thing to do would be to probably search freshmeat for the project page and look at the documentation. Maybe submit it to both the package maintainer and to distribution maintainer if you really have the time (ha!).
My personal plea to the distribution maintainers: help the package authors out! Please!
The next site to slashdot will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and start slashdotting it early!