>> What can be done about this sort of thing?
> 
> IMO only the responsible party (Walter, for DMD) or the submitter should alter a ticket's status.  I appreciate the effort of others try and keep things all neat and tidy, but I'm not sure things have gotten to the point where this sort of help is truly necessary.  If you suspect a ticket is a duplicate, perhaps it would be more appropriate to post something to the effect here and let the submitter decide?
> 
> 
> Sean

I don't see a problem here.

If someone marks a bug as duplicate, the bug do not silently disappear. Everybody can reopen the bug status at any time. And if there is really a argue about it, there is also the possibility of an poll in bugzilla.

This is like a wiki. It lives from the community contributing to it. Any restriction is worse than it help. Animate the people to contribute, don't put restrictions on the system. Failures happens, only if no one is contributing any more, then no errors will happen. :)

d-bugmail@puremagic.com wrote:
> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=206
> 
> 
> someidiot@earthlink.net changed:
> 
>            What    |Removed                     |Added
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>              Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
>          Resolution|DUPLICATE                   |
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------- Comment #3 from someidiot@earthlink.net  2006-06-19 13:33 -------
> This is *not* a duplicate of #48 -- read the descriptions carefully. #48
> actually has the basic visibility operable and enabled (in march 2006), but
> allows one to step around visibility by fully qualifiying. Since then, the
> basic visibility mechanism has broken down completely.
> 
> 

I based my status change on Derek's code example, and I am *sure* (and I think that it should be obvious to anyone) that Derek's example *is* a duplicate of bug #48. If Derek's example wasn't what you meant for issue #206, then you should clarify. In fact you should have done that in the first place.

And no, "visibility" is not the same as "accessibility". In Bug #48 one works around "accessibility" (and thus also "visibility") using FQ-names. Derek's example does the same, (and he himself explicits that it is about accessibility).

Kuehne originally understood your bug in a different way, he thought that you were complaining that protection attributes do not affect visibility but just accessibility, so he commented that the spec indeed states that protection attributes only affect visibility.

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - CS/E student
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D

Sean Kelly wrote:
> kris wrote:
>> d-bugmail@puremagic.com wrote:
>>> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=206
>>>
>>> someidiot@earthlink.net changed:
>>>
>>>            What    |Removed                     |Added
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>>
>>>              Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
>>>          Resolution|DUPLICATE                   |
>>>
>>> ------- Comment #3 from someidiot@earthlink.net  2006-06-19 13:33 -------
>>> This is *not* a duplicate of #48 -- read the descriptions carefully. #48
>>> actually has the basic visibility operable and enabled (in march 2006), but
>>> allows one to step around visibility by fully qualifiying. Since then, the
>>> basic visibility mechanism has broken down completely.
>>
>> It's somewhat annoying when someone goes in and starts removing active bug reports; especially when they apparently don't even understand the problem described. This kind of behaviour tends to dissuade the submission of reports in the first place.
>>
>> What can be done about this sort of thing?
> 
> IMO only the responsible party (Walter, for DMD) or the submitter should alter a ticket's status.  I appreciate the effort of others try and keep things all neat and tidy, but I'm not sure things have gotten to the point where this sort of help is truly necessary.  If you suspect a ticket is a duplicate, perhaps it would be more appropriate to post something to the effect here and let the submitter decide?
> 
> 
> Sean

For now, I was thinking things could manage with a bit of reasoning and good sense, but if Walter wants to lay some rules, I'm sure we can all abide by that.

But to note the following:
I marked as duplicate because I'm pretty sure it's the same as Derek's example.
Also, I won't revert any unduplication. Unduplication would mean there is contention, and contention must be settled outside of bugzilla, or by the leaders (Walter).

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - CS/E student
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D

Frank Benoit wrote:
> I don't see a problem here.
> 
> If someone marks a bug as duplicate, the bug do not silently disappear.
> Everybody can reopen the bug status at any time. And if there is really
> a argue about it, there is also the possibility of an poll in bugzilla.
> 
> This is like a wiki. It lives from the community contributing to it. Any
> restriction is worse than it help. Animate the people to contribute,
> don't put restrictions on the system. Failures happens, only if no one
> is contributing any more, then no errors will happen. :)

There is a problem, but as you say, the solution is much worse than the problem. I think we're better off with an open community bugzilla. I think we can all live with honest mistakes here and there. I certainly make my share of them.

So far, bugzilla hasn't been attacked with vandalism or spam. So far, so good <g>.

Bruno Medeiros wrote:
>
> Also, I won't revert any unduplication. Unduplication would mean there is contention, and contention must be settled outside of bugzilla, or by the leaders (Walter).

That works for me.  I mostly just don't want to see this sort of thing turn into a battle.


Sean

On Mon, 19 Jun 2006, Sean Kelly wrote:

> Bruno Medeiros wrote:
> >
> > Also, I won't revert any unduplication. Unduplication would mean there is contention, and contention must be settled outside of bugzilla, or by the leaders (Walter).
> 
> That works for me.  I mostly just don't want to see this sort of thing turn into a battle.
> 
> 
> Sean

I'll worry about it only if things do go that far, and at that point by talking to the involved parties.  The value of having the community help out with deduping bugs and helping each other out by improving the quality of the bug reports so greatly outweighs the occasional misstep that I'm not willing to throw in any roadblocks right now.

On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 04:37:59 +1000, kris <foo@bar.com> wrote:

> d-bugmail@puremagic.com wrote:
>> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=206
>>   someidiot@earthlink.net changed:
>>             What    |Removed                     |Added
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>              Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
>>          Resolution|DUPLICATE                   |
>>     ------- Comment #3 from someidiot@earthlink.net  2006-06-19 13:33 -------
>> This is *not* a duplicate of #48 -- read the descriptions carefully. #48
>> actually has the basic visibility operable and enabled (in march 2006), but
>> allows one to step around visibility by fully qualifiying. Since then, the
>> basic visibility mechanism has broken down completely.
>>
>
>
> It's somewhat annoying when someone goes in and starts removing active bug reports; especially when they apparently don't even understand the problem described. This kind of behaviour tends to dissuade the submission of reports in the first place.
>
> What can be done about this sort of thing?
>
The fundanmental rule about closing bug reports is that they an *ONLY* be closed by the person who raised them. This is because they are the ones that need to be satisfied.

Education about Product Support must be increased and this is slowly happening here.


-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia

Bruno Medeiros wrote:
> Also, I won't revert any unduplication. Unduplication would mean there is contention, and contention must be settled outside of bugzilla, or by the leaders (Walter).

That sounds like a reasonable strategy, although I agree with Derek that it should perhaps be the report-initiator who actually closes any report -- that would tend to indicate an interim state for bugs that are technically "fixed", yet still awaiting confirmation. Bugzilla might be quite good at this, since it already sends out appropriate email notifications.

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=206


deewiant@gmail.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED




------- Comment #6 from deewiant@gmail.com  2006-07-22 08:20 -------
Fixed DMD 0.163.


--