Bugzilla Etiquette Guide Now Available
Wednesday March 19th, 2003
Simon Paquet wrote in to tell us about the new Bugzilla etiquette guidelines, written by Gervase Markham. These guidelines explain a number of the most common Bugzilla faux pas and are intended to make Bugzilla a more pleasant environment for all. If you see anyone violating these rules, you should refer them to this document by way of a polite, private email. Persistent offenders should be reported to Gerv, who is well versed in the art of LARTing.
#8 Re: Re: A very nice document
Wednesday March 19th, 2003 2:11 PM
You are replying to this message
In general, most developers give reasonable explanations for marking a bug INVALID or WONTFIX. The most common reasons for disagreement are (a) the problem is a UI issue and (b) the problem is a backwards or sideways compatibility issue. Case (b): Mozilla has made the reasonable decision to drop support for some older non-standard Netscape or IE features. This can sometimes cause problems for the viewer, but the solution is to try to get the web page authors to use the standards, rather than adding "cruft" to Mozilla. In this case, I would suggest that a standard boilerplate be added to the bug report that gives and concise explanation and recommends opening an evangelism bug for offending sites. Case (a): While I like some of the decisions to streamline the interface (and more can be done here), and I think that some of the alternatives that developers suggest are a better approach - I am disappointed when requests for optional functionality are denied even when there is great user support and *no* alternative is provided. An example of this is Bug 39057 <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39057> . Note that the same functionality for tabs Bug 108973 <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=108973> is not marked as WONTFIX. In the case of UI issues, unless an alternative is provided, I am not sure I agree with just a WONTFIX. But that is just a personal opinion.