Not even that is takes forever for bugs to get fixed, but that as a triage community we don't have the tools, or resources to respond to bugs that are submitted quick enough. I am not even talking about NEW bugs that are waiting to be fixed, that is after the triage has already been done. I'm talking about bugs that haven't even been confirmed yet.
Out of those 13,000, I closed about 5,000 because the reporters hadn't replied after a certain period of time. It was a cleanup, not proper triage. If we had a quick response time, we probably wouldn't have gotten to 13,000. And unfortunately, without fixing the process, we will be at 13,000 again.
First off, I never intended my post to be taken in the way that it was. Simply because there are 6000 UNCO bugs in the Firefox product does not mean that Firefox has 6000 bugs in it. Out of all those bugs, the majority are going to be duplicates of other bugs, they are going to be user error, they are going to be bugs caused by a misbehaving extension that a user installed on Firefox, and so on. Out of all those 6000 bugs, I'd estimate at most there are 1000 REAL bugs in Firefox, and that is an extremely high guess. What I was trying to say is that without going through and triaging all those bugs, we have no way of knowing which are real and should be taken seriously, and which are not real bugs.
If you read https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/page.cgi?id=fields.html#status, you will see: "This bug has recently been added to the database. Nobody has validated that this bug is true. Users who have the "canconfirm" permission set may confirm this bug, changing its state to NEW. Or, it may be directly resolved and marked RESOLVED. " An UNCO bug has not be confirmed yet, it needs to be marked as NEW before it is considered a real bug.
So it isn't fair to say that Firefox shipped with 6000 bugs, but more that there are roughly 2600 bugs that haven't been touched in 150 days, which is far more worrisome to me. We will never be able to have 0 bugs, but we may at least have a quick response to the bugs we do get. That is what my whole blog post was about, quick responses, and treating our reporters fairly. Unfortunately, Conceivably Tech was too eager to get a shocking headline, and so misconstrued my points. If you come back to re-read my blog in a day or two, I'll post more clarifications.
Slashdot Mirror
http://tylerdowner.wordpress.com/2011/08/29/even-more-clarifications/ Goes over some of the apparent misunderstandings stemming from my last blog post.
Not even that is takes forever for bugs to get fixed, but that as a triage community we don't have the tools, or resources to respond to bugs that are submitted quick enough. I am not even talking about NEW bugs that are waiting to be fixed, that is after the triage has already been done. I'm talking about bugs that haven't even been confirmed yet.
Yes, and those People are banned after fair warning. So we already have steps to try to control spam.
Out of those 13,000, I closed about 5,000 because the reporters hadn't replied after a certain period of time. It was a cleanup, not proper triage. If we had a quick response time, we probably wouldn't have gotten to 13,000. And unfortunately, without fixing the process, we will be at 13,000 again.
First off, I never intended my post to be taken in the way that it was. Simply because there are 6000 UNCO bugs in the Firefox product does not mean that Firefox has 6000 bugs in it. Out of all those bugs, the majority are going to be duplicates of other bugs, they are going to be user error, they are going to be bugs caused by a misbehaving extension that a user installed on Firefox, and so on. Out of all those 6000 bugs, I'd estimate at most there are 1000 REAL bugs in Firefox, and that is an extremely high guess. What I was trying to say is that without going through and triaging all those bugs, we have no way of knowing which are real and should be taken seriously, and which are not real bugs. If you read https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/page.cgi?id=fields.html#status, you will see: "This bug has recently been added to the database. Nobody has validated that this bug is true. Users who have the "canconfirm" permission set may confirm this bug, changing its state to NEW. Or, it may be directly resolved and marked RESOLVED. " An UNCO bug has not be confirmed yet, it needs to be marked as NEW before it is considered a real bug. So it isn't fair to say that Firefox shipped with 6000 bugs, but more that there are roughly 2600 bugs that haven't been touched in 150 days, which is far more worrisome to me. We will never be able to have 0 bugs, but we may at least have a quick response to the bugs we do get. That is what my whole blog post was about, quick responses, and treating our reporters fairly. Unfortunately, Conceivably Tech was too eager to get a shocking headline, and so misconstrued my points. If you come back to re-read my blog in a day or two, I'll post more clarifications.