"J C Calvarese" <jcc7@cox.net> wrote in message news:c678k4$403$2@digitaldaemon.com...
> J C Calvarese wrote:
> > Stephan Wienczny wrote:
> >
> >> J Anderson wrote:
> >>
> >>> Kris wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Perhaps there's some issue over negative publicity?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> I think this is big W's reason against a bug list.
> >>>
> >> Thats what big W said whenever this discussion came up... Maybe this time again?
> >
> >
> > This is the best reference I could find to Walter's dislike of bug lists:
> >
> > "I published a carefully documented bug list once in the past. It was a disaster." -- Walter, http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?D/23404
>
> IIRC, the problem was the bug list was used against Walter to show that his software is "buggy".

That's my recollection. But the fact is that it is buggy, just as much as anyone elses. Frankly, the rate at which D is becoming popular, I think this concern is now irrelevant.

In article <c674bc$2v55$1@digitaldaemon.com>,
 "Unknown W. Brackets" <unknown@at.simplemachines.dot.org> wrote:
> Yes.  You seem to have a lot to say about bug reporting systems....

I just don't like the idea of important information falling through the cracks. ;-)

> ... and I am not happy with any of the existing ones.

What does Bugzilla lack?  I wouldn't try to suggest that it has everything anyone could need, but in general I also don't like the idea of well-debugged finished products going unused.

> If you'd be willing to give me comments on what you might think bug reporting systems currently miss, or need more of, etc... I'd be very grateful.

I don't know what people here could need that Bugzilla doesn't have.

So: does anyone want to suggest a list of requirements?

Matthew wrote:
> "J C Calvarese" <jcc7@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:c678k4$403$2@digitaldaemon.com...
> 
>>J C Calvarese wrote:
>>
>>>Stephan Wienczny wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>J Anderson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Kris wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Perhaps there's some issue over negative publicity?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I think this is big W's reason against a bug list.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Thats what big W said whenever this discussion came up...
>>>>Maybe this time again?
>>>
>>>
>>>This is the best reference I could find to Walter's dislike of bug lists:
>>>
>>>"I published a carefully documented bug list once in the past. It was a
>>>disaster." -- Walter, http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?D/23404
>>
>>IIRC, the problem was the bug list was used against Walter to show that
>>his software is "buggy".
> 
> 
> That's my recollection. But the fact is that it is buggy, just as much as anyone
> elses. Frankly, the rate at which D is becoming popular, I think this concern is
> now irrelevant.

Right. And we'll have to fight FUD whether there's a bug list or not. The slashdotting proved that. (Garbage collection is what makes Java so slow. C++ will always be the best; all other languages are for script kiddies. If Microsoft isn't interested, it won't succeed. Should've called it "P". The name "D" is already taken by 100 other languages. "D" stands for dumb. Etc.)

-- 
Justin
http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/

> 
> IIRC, the problem was the bug list was used against Walter to show that his software is "buggy".
> 

Even worse, I think the bug list was published "verbatum" in an article reviewing his software... or something like that.

J C Calvarese wrote:

<snip>
> IIRC, the problem was the bug list was used against Walter to show that his software is "buggy".
<snip>

If people are going to construe bug lists as personal attacks on the software developer, that's their problem.

Bug lists are not supposed to be attacks on the software developer, nor on the software itself.  They are supposed to be attacks on the individual bugs listed.

In relation to the software, a bug list is constructive criticism.

Further, it:
- helps to keep the development organised
- provides user confidence that a reported bug has been acknowledged
- saves user time in diagnosing and re-reporting a bug that has already been reported.

Stewart.

-- 
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment.  Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.

In article <c66gsp$1tgc$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Kris says...
>
>Many of us post what we uncover as bugs or inconsistencies. Some are purely misunderstandings, whilst others are glaring errors.
>
>Rather than Walter just trying to keep them all in his head, and/or perhaps missing some posts, wouldn't it be more productive to sanction some site as a "quasi-official" bug-list? This newsgroup doesn't cut it because a) bugs are interspersed with other conversations and b) there's never any status feedback (except by looking at the change-log upon subsequent compiler releases).
>
>There's at least one Wiki page that tries to address this, but without general consent, especially from Walter <g>, it's somewhat of a lost cause ...
>
>Perhaps there's some issue over negative publicity? I would certainly hope not. How about it folks? Does Walter already manage a list like this? Am I just wasting your time?
>
>BTW: this is intended to help the release process; not hinder it.
>
>- Kris
>

We need something of this nature.  This is an attempt to define something appropriate to our current and immediate future needs, not necessarily long-term, and not subject to the problems of being officially recognized by Walter, just available to him as a resource. I feel it should have these characteristrics:

1.  Moderated by a single person or small group having the ability to lock some of the content, and to delete any wrong or superfluous additions, and to purge or archive completed and rejected entries.  I lean toward archiving purges to a separate (at least logically) info base.

2.  It should be open to all users to add entries, further info, and comments subject to the actions of #1 above.

3.  Documentation, specification, and implementation bug reports and feature requests should all be allowed with appropriate categorization.

4.  Entries are not complete and should not be prioritized above "interesting" without a minimal set of demo code for the bug, further test code for checking correction if appropriate, and/or code to illustrate the desired capability.

5.  If appropriate and possible, work-arounds, and ideas and code for correct implementation should be submittable.

6.  Useable search capabilities must be provided for this to work, with various sectioning of where to search and with subsearches of initial response.

7.  We don't need assignment of priority, but interest level indication by some "add a yea or nay vote or indicate a value/importance [1 to 10) vote" method would be useful.  (Might need to lock to an IP or user to prevent multiple votes, but later if needed.)

8.  It should be possible for this to handle A. compiler, B. phobos, C. peripheral libraries, and D. current project links.

9.  It would be nice for projects to be able to tag entries with their requirements and desires.  (classed as Necessary, Important, Useful, and Wishlisted ?)

10. Where appropriate, someone should be able to note that they are working to resolve the problem or need - with a web or enail link to them.

Does this sound like a pre-configured, moderated Wiki with page templates specialized to our needs and perhaps specialized search capabilities?  It doesn't sound like Bugzilla - more a consolidation and optimization of information and effort facilitator than a "Buglist".  Let's keep the free and easy growth potential we currently have as long as possible.

More, anyone?

James Widman wrote:

> What does Bugzilla lack?  I wouldn't try to suggest that it has everything anyone could need, but in general I also don't like the idea of well-debugged finished products going unused.

Look at PHP's bug system.  In some ways, Bugzilla is too complex, too ugly, and a bit bloated.  It also has its set of bugs, like any project might.... which are reasons, again, that I don't want to use it.

As well, I've not seen a bug system that does pagination - look at, for example, the mng bug on Bugzilla.  That could take a long time to fully load for dial up users.... really, the comments should be shown in groups of about 25, which would in most cases cause absolutely no problems and solve a lot of things.

And I said ugly.  By this I don't just mean it isn't as pleasing as some - in the long run that doesn't matter - but it also can have somewhat confusing UI.

I'm not trying to say Bugzilla is not a good system.  I'm not saying D couldn't use it.  I'm just saying, nothing, not even D, is perfect.

-[Unknown]