Improve handling of duplicated issues to keep all affected users informed
Hi all, my current understanding of our issue handling of duplicates in Github is that we 1. add a link to the related issue (or vice verce) 2. close the issue as "duplicate" so that only one survives This has two disadvantages: 1. The OP (original poster) of the duplicated issue will not be informed about the progress of the surviving issue unless the OP posts at least one comment or explicitly subscribes to the surviving issue. This means eg. that the OP would (worst case) not even participate in testing a fix. 2. We cannot create reports issue reports on duplicated issues (eg. to count them or to keep them out of the statistics since they skew them). I suggest to - add and use a "Duplicate" tag to those closed issues (solves 2. above) - manually inform users about important milestones (like "fix posted - please test") in the linked duplicates; this must be done manually... (solves 1. above). Any opinions? Any suggestions esp. to solve 1. better (with less manual work)?
Moin moin, Am 10.10.2022 10:25 schrieb J. A.:
I don't see a problem here. The OP is responsible himself to subscribe to the referenced issue. This is how bug trackers work.
Not sure if I understand that. You mean my issue statistics? I won't go that deep and dividing between duplicates and "real" issues. What is the value of it to know how many closed duplicates we have?
- manually inform users about important milestones
Not in our resources and not in our responsibility.
Any opinions? Any suggestions esp. to solve 1. better (with less manual work)?
Keep it as it is. :) Maybe we can add a small help-text-block when closing duplicates. e.g. "Close as duplicate of #1111. Please subscribe that referenced issue to keep informed about the progress." Kind Christian
Hi, I have to say I agree with @buhtzz here. When I close a ticket as a duplicate, the reporter and everyone subscribed get an e-mail notification saying: "The Issue was closed: duplicate of #XXXX". They can then decide to subscribe to the new one, or not. What's more, in our current special situtation, I almost always close tickets whose reported have been unresponsive to @buhtzz's "ping" from two weeks ago. In cases where there really is an active discussion, I would encourage people directly to post in the new Issue, as I did here: https://github.com/bit-team/backintime/issues/1052#issuecomment-1272403715 So I think we're doing okay as it is. It would mean a lot of manual overhead to keep closed duplicates updated, and I think we shouldn't afford that at the moment. Cheers, Michael On 10.10.2022 10:31, c.buhtz@posteo.jp wrote:
Moin moin, Am 10.10.2022 10:25 schrieb J. A.:
I don't see a problem here. The OP is responsible himself to subscribe to the referenced issue. This is how bug trackers work.
Not sure if I understand that. You mean my issue statistics? I won't go that deep and dividing between duplicates and "real" issues. What is the value of it to know how many closed duplicates we have?
- manually inform users about important milestones
Not in our resources and not in our responsibility.
Any opinions? Any suggestions esp. to solve 1. better (with less manual work)?
Keep it as it is. :) Maybe we can add a small help-text-block when closing duplicates. e.g. "Close as duplicate of #1111. Please subscribe that referenced issue to keep informed about the progress." Kind Christian
Hi, I have to say I agree with @buhtzz here. When I close a ticket as a duplicate, the reporter and everyone subscribed get an e-mail notification saying: "The Issue was closed: duplicate of #XXXX". They can then decide to subscribe to the new one, or not. What's more, in our current special situtation, I almost always close tickets whose reported have been unresponsive to @buhtzz's "ping" from two weeks ago. In cases where there really is an active discussion, I would encourage people directly to post in the new Issue, as I did here: https://github.com/bit-team/backintime/issues/1052#issuecomment-1272403715 So I think we're doing okay as it is. It would mean a lot of manual overhead to keep closed duplicates updated, and I think we shouldn't afford that at the moment. Cheers, Michael On 10.10.2022 10:31, c.buhtz@posteo.jp wrote:
participants (3)
-
c.buhtz＠posteo.jp -
J. A. -
Michael Büker