Slashdot Mirror
Public Bug Tracking and Open-Source Policy
Observer writes "Bugs in software are nothing new, but when they're discussed in the open, how do open source projects adapt policy? A major regression in the Gnome project's session manager has seen some major distributions choose to refuse to follow the update rather than drop a major feature. Between Gnome's public bug tracker and similar trackers from distributions which released (and still distribute) the buggy version, months of debate provide an interesting case-study in the way front-line users and developers interact for better or for worse. What lessons can be learned here for release planning, bug triage, and marketing for a major open source project?"
Hear, hear. At work I maintain a internal fork of an open source library we use. Not because I enjoy forking: because the guy with write access to the library's repository started a major refactor 18 months ago in trunk and still hasn't finished it; the subset he uses works, but we use some of the more advanced stuff which he hasn't fixed yet. I can't just take a snapshot before the refactor because then I miss loads of bugfixes.
Keep in mind that the end-user will not be exposed to those internal discussions, although they take place in public, open forums.
Huh? If they're public and open, the end use can see them. What are you talking about?
My emphasis.
It's for just that reason that I question this mostly unstated assumption that anywhere there is a gap between developers and users, that it is somehow entirely and automatically the job of the developers to bridge that gap. When you are talking about Open Source software that is both free as in speech and free as in beer, there is certainly no moral expectation that this should be the case.
The average users in this scenario are non-contributing beneficiaries. Non-contributing beneficiaries who are demanding instead of helpful are beggars who are trying to be choosers. Here, I'm not talking so much about what is said and done so much as the way it is said and done and the intent behind it. It's one thing to politely ask for a feature or a change because you think it would be great. It's quite another to make judgments about someone's character or their ability to figure something out because their free contribution was not to your liking.
By and large, these users are unwilling to acquire the skills necessary to implement the changes that they demand from the developers and yet some of them are willing to pontificate about how a developer should think. When the GP said "Sadly, many developers never figure this part out", that is a manipulative way of saying "they seem to disagree with me about what should be important." I say that because some things genuinely are "sad" while others are merely differences of opinion and it is intellectually dishonest to conflate the two. The only reason for doing it is to give an undue appearance of superiority to your own viewpoint but if your viewpoint were truly superior, no such tactics would be needed.
Furthermore, this is a difference of opinion not between two equal viewpoints but between a contributor and a non-contributor. Beware the tendency to automatically consider all viewpoints to be equal. It has a certain allure because it can sound noble but there are many times when it just isn't the case.
When you unnecessarily phrase something in a manipulative fashion, subtle though that may be, it has some interesting effects. Most people are not aware enough to understand why or to see this process as it occurs, but what happens is that they instinctively sense that there is a "wrong feeling" to it. Unfortunately many people, even those who can see this happening, lack the strength to just calmly point it out and show by their example that there is another way. They don't know how to experience it without being affected by it because they are externally motivated and it is external ("externally motivated" = "responds to pressure"). So when they sense this "wrong" feeling there is a tendency to either appease it or to fight it, depending on the character of the person. Both are wrong because both are harmful.
Appeasing it is a mistake because it validates the tactic and sends the message that it's acceptable and will obtain the desired results. It also robs the appeaser of much of the joy that could have been found in the creative process by replacing noble service with demeaning servitude, a process that tends to breed resentment. Fighting it results in senseless pissing contests and personal arguments which reinforce the "us against them" mentality, in this case "the interests of developers vs. the interests of users". It also makes sure that your position is no better than that of the other person and so it destroys your ability to lead by example even if you were initially correct. There a
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Actually, I rather think that you are placing the blame on the wrong set of individuals here.
I work for a closed-source software company, which has some extremely large customers using our product. We were implementing minor/major releases and we incorporated functionality changes to minor releases. This was a problem almost every time, because at least one of our customers was using that feature and relying on it to work the way it worked in the previous patch.
Consequently we stopped adding new functionality into the minor releases.
You'll notice, however, that it's not the developers that caused this issue. No. It was the project and product managers for either a. allowing the functionality change, or b. allowing the functionality change but not realising the sheer impact it would have on the client-base and thus not planning accordingly.
That said, the difference between the company I work for and the Gnome project (after reviewing the ) was that when a regression occured for us we scrambled for a fix within a week, while the Gnome guys say things like "The bug is fixed when it's closed as FIXED.", "Paolo, Manu: Whining does not really help in getting things fixed.
"What's the hold up?" Write the code for it and attach it here." and "Yeah. And the codebase for 2.24 has changed a lot, so the 2.22 code has to be
adapted/changed a bit. Just do it, the code is available. *shrug*"
The last comment was the most infuriating to a lot of people I think. The best response I read in relation to Andre Klepper's "*shrug*" comment was:
As a fan of open-source for a LONG time, I'm beginning to wonder if it will ever cut it in the business world. I suspect with attitudes like the ones highlighted above that the answer is "no". And that makes me feel very, very sad.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.