|
|
|
[
Permlink
| « Hide
]
Harleen Gretzky added a comment - 25/May/08 02:22 PM
The problem is the duplicates would get votes and comments that belong on the original because people do not realize it is a duplicate since it is open. This could especially be detrimental to the issue if someone discovers the cause and posts the cause on a duplicate instead of an original issue.
Fair enough, Harleen.
However, my point here is that the issues are NOT being fixed. Votes and comments really aren't that important when the illusion is created that things are being fixed. Issues are being closed and marked as resolved, without anything being fixed. "Resolved" means "We have found the problem, and corrected the cause to prevent re-occurrence." It does NOT mean "there are two, so if we close one, it's fixed." The general practice for duplicate issues is to resolve them as Duplicate and also link them as Duplicate to the original issue. That way, when you view either issue, you can see the other under the "Issue Links" section. For some hot-button issues (such as skirts not working in the RC), we get as many as 2-4 duplicates per DAY. It's just not feasible to keep that many issues open and updated constantly about the same issue. In order to have any semblance of order on the JIRA, we need to present a united description of each bug.
Note that "Resolved" doesn't mean "fixed". Look here: https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Issue_tracker Lex, I'm not a computer programmer. The link you posted has more information than I know how to use.
I'm just a simple user, who has no other place to shed some light on the bugs I encounter. However, "resolved" does mean "fixed", according to http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/resolved Perhaps what I should be suggesting is a different word choice. As I originally stated, my primary concern is that the illusion is given of things being repaired. Well, I can only speak from the point of view of a user of this system, and I didn't design it. LL didn't either; JIRA is an off-the-shelf product for issue tracking. It's very flexible, but there are some limitations on what LL can change.
The relavent definition from the link above is #5: 5: to reach a firm decision about In the case of duplicate issues, it means that the report has been evaluated and dispatched properly. It's not an attempt to shuffle an issue under the carpet, but actually serves the opposite purpose: if an issue has many duplicates it makes it clear to LL that a lot of people are having the problem. The problem with not marking them resolved is that people will comment on them, and those comments will likely not get seen by developers. By having only one open issue on the topic, it increases the probability that relevant comments will get seen. Those unseen comments may be what are needed to getting the issue resolved.
Personally I like the sting that goes with the marking as duplicate. It carries the message "search before you post" By resolving duplicates you can filter them out. You don't have to worry about people trying to hijack the process by posting multiple times. Lex, a very powerful point.
I realize now that I hadn't considered this from the point of view of Linden Lab. In retrospect, I see that I had been looking at this from the point of view of months of blog entries about grid problems titled "[Resolved]", only to have the problems re-occur on a daily basis. I suppose I have a conditioned response to the word apparently being used the same way that Vizzini used the word "Inconceivable". Strife, as I've stated, I have no objection to closing duplicate issues, merely with the choice of the word "resolved". As I also stated, I have a problem with the search function. I have no idea how my issue post regarding disabling timestamps showed up as two identical issues ( Your final point is as powerful as Lex's. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
New Feature
Resolved
Nice to have
Leave duplicate jira entries marked as open instead of marked as resolved.
