Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Firefox Bug Mozilla News

Updated: Mozilla Community Contributor Departs Over Bug Handling 334

Posted by Soulskill
from the ways-in-which-mozilla-is-like-a-new-york-apartment dept.
An anonymous reader writes "A blog post published by Mozilla community contributor Tyler Downer claims the Mozilla Triage QA process is broken, and he believes that the rapid release implementation does not work with their current method of handling bugs. Quoting: 'I understand that change takes time, and there is always a delay between planning a change, and the implementation. But with Triage, time is our enemy. We currently have 2,598 UNCO bugs in Firefox that haven’t been touched in 150 days. That is almost 2600 bugs that have not been touched since Firefox 4 was released. ... In Spring 2010, we hit roughly 13,000 UNCO bugs in the Firefox product on BMO. 13,000!!! We currently have 5,934. While this is an improvement, that is 6,000 bugs in Firefox that could be shipping today, and enhancements that could be making the web better (of course it isn’t that high, but the potential is there). This is several thousand contributors that we have told "Thank you for filing a bug report with us. We don’t really care about it, and we are going to let it sit for 6 months and just ask you to retest when you know it isn’t fixed, but thank you anyway."'" Update: 08/29 19:46 GMT by S : Downer has made another blog post clarifying the bug issue. Updated title and summary to reflect that he was a volunteer, not a Mozilla employee.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Updated: Mozilla Community Contributor Departs Over Bug Handling

Comments Filter:
  • by matt007 (80854) on Monday August 29, 2011 @11:44AM (#37242288)

    Mozilla community is killing Firefox with their super-fast releases. we went from 4 to 7 in no time.. (i'm on the beta channel)
    Addons break non stop because of upgrades
    Bugs arent being fixed

    = Users will leave soon ?

    • by Trillan (597339) on Monday August 29, 2011 @11:46AM (#37242322) Homepage Journal

      I think Firefox lost "good" long before the rapid releases began. Rapid releases were just a (failed) attempt to fix the suck.

      I'm not sure Firefox ever really lost anything, though. It's possible my tolerance for lame cross platform solutions has just gone way, way down.

      • Mozilla Foundation has always been badly managed. In the beginning it was managed by Winifred Mitchell Baker, a socially backward lawyer with no technical experience.

        Add-ons are the reason people use Firefox. Decisions are made that break Firefox Add-ons, without notice.

        Firefox is extremely important because it is the only browser that has such an extensive list of add-ons. (Unfortunately, Add-ons are also called "extensions" and "plug-ins".) For some uses, the add-ons are so convenient that they can be considered necessary.

        Firefox instability corrupts the Windows operating system. There is huge instability seen only by people who open many windows and tabs, and leave them open for a long time. (It is not necessary to say you don't experience this bug if you don't commonly have 30 or more windows with 100 or more tabs open for several hours. Those of us who must do research have needs different than the average user.) That particular Firefox instability has been there since version 1, perhaps 10 years ago. An example: Two days ago I had a crash in Firefox version 6.0 that did not generate a Talkback report.

        Mozilla Foundation Top 20 Excuses for Not Fixing Firefox Bugs (Last updated in 2009.)

        Here are the top 20 things Firefox and Mozilla developers say to those who report difficult bugs, collected over the last 8 years. See also the extensive information provided in this Slashdot comment, Firefox is the most unstable program in common use [slashdot.org], and the links in the comment.
        1. Maybe this bug is fixed in the nightly build. [The same bug has been reported many, many times over a period of four years.]
        2. Yes, this bug exists, but other things are more important. [The bug eventually takes 100% of CPU power, and makes Windows XP unusable, even after Firefox is killed. The bug affects the heaviest users of Firefox.]
        3. Yes, this bug exists, but it is not a common occurrence. [Numerous users have reported the bug. See the links.]
        4. Works for me. [The bug is complicated to reproduce, so the developers did a simplified test, which didn't show the bug.]
        5. No one has posted a TalkBack report. [If they had read the bug report, they would know that there is never a TalkBack report, because the bug crashes TalkBack, too, or a TalkBack report is not generated. TalkBack does not generate a report if Firefox is hogging the CPU. TalkBack cannot generate a report if the bug takes 100% of the CPU time.]
        6. If you would just give us more information, we would fix this bug. [They didn't bother to reproduce the bug using the detailed information provided.]
        7. This bug report is a composite of other bugs, so this bug report is invalid. [The other bugs aren't specified.]
        8. You are using Firefox in a way that would crash any software. [But the same use does not crash any version of Opera.]
        9. I don't like the way you worded your bug report. [So, he didn't read it or think about it.]
        10. You should run a debugger and find what causes this problem yourself. [Then when you have done most of the work, tell us what causes the problem, and we may fix it.]
        11. Many bugs that are filed aren't important to 99.99% of the users.
        12. If you are saying bad things about Mozilla and Firefox, you must be trolling. [They say this even though Firefox and Mozilla instability is beginning to be reported in media such as Information Week. See the links to magazine articles in this Slashdot comment: Firefox is the most unstable program in common use [slashdot.org]
        13. Your problem is probably caused by using extensions. [These are extensions advertised on the Firefox and Mozilla web site, and recommended.]
        14. Your problem is probably caused by a corrupt profile. [The same bug has been reported many times over a period of four years. One of the reports discusses an extensive te
        • by buchner.johannes (1139593) on Monday August 29, 2011 @02:08PM (#37244296) Homepage Journal

          Mozilla Foundation has always been badly managed. In the beginning it was managed by Winifred Mitchell Baker, a socially backward lawyer with no technical experience.

            Add-ons are the reason people use Firefox. Decisions are made that break Firefox Add-ons, without notice.

          Firefox is extremely important because it is the only browser that has such an extensive list of add-ons. (Unfortunately, Add-ons are also called "extensions" and "plug-ins".) For some uses, the add-ons are so convenient that they can be considered necessary.

          Mozilla is not breaking add-ons anymore. Now, addons are scanned by a bot and if no problems are expected, the addons compatibility version range is automatically extended to the current version. I have seen this with my addons.

          Addons are themes and extensions. Plugins are something completely different, for instance Flash and Movie players, i.e. implementations of the nsplugin-api. This is clearly defined by Mozilla.

        • by AmiMoJo (196126)

          I agree, but what is the alternative?

          Safari is bloated by the inclusion of Quicktime, Apple Updater and half of MacOS just so that the fonts render the Mac way.

          Chrome is fast but still a bit rough, and the developers make Mozilla look caring when it comes to long standing feature requests. I suppose they only care about things Google cares about like making pages load faster, rather than usability issues or bug fixes. Sounds oddly familiar... Does anyone other than Google do significant work on it? Annoying

    • 6 weeks is an awful short time between releases. Why not make it 4 or 6 months? That's still 2-3 version numbers a year. Current cycles means Mozilla are releasing over 8 versions a year, too many to keep track of, it seems Bugzilla is finding it hard to keep up too.

      I've pretty much given up on Mozilla, I no longer triage bugs for them. There is no time to take bugs seriously, everything is focused on the next version number and the one under-the-hood thing that gets added in the new version.

      • by Skuto (171945)

        I completely fail to see the connection between the actual version numbers in releases, or release frequency, and the bug tracking system, or how they influence each other.

        Care to explain?

        One thing I could imagine is that it is more likely that the developers will ask you to test something again on the latest release. Not a big change here, I'd guess before they'd have asked you to test on a nightly.

    • by LordLimecat (1103839) on Monday August 29, 2011 @11:54AM (#37242434)

      Way to read the article. Tyler specifically mentions in the first 10 sentences that he love Rapid Release, and it has absolutely nothing to do with his departure.

      His complaint is the same as the complaints have always been for Firefox-- it takes forever for bugs to get fixed.

    • I'm still waiting on a bug to be fixed that dates back to version 4 beta. It's not something trivial, I get a BSoD after about 15-20 minutes of regular use. I've looked online, I've submitted bugs, I've done just about everything they've suggested, save one: 'Turn off Crossfire whenever I use their browser', and frankly, that's in no way a real solution at all. Every other suggestion has been useless and not fixed the problem, and the problem continues to persist with every release...and based on the nu

      • by 0123456 (636235) on Monday August 29, 2011 @12:15PM (#37242664)

        I'm still waiting on a bug to be fixed that dates back to version 4 beta. It's not something trivial, I get a BSoD after about 15-20 minutes of regular use. I've looked online, I've submitted bugs, I've done just about everything they've suggested, save one: 'Turn off Crossfire whenever I use their browser', and frankly, that's in no way a real solution at all.

        Applications per se won't give you a BSOD, because that generally means something went horribly wrong in kernel mode. Sounds like the ATI drivers have a bug that causes a crash with Crossfire enabled, and Firefox can't rewrite those drivers for you.

      • by BBTaeKwonDo (1540945) on Monday August 29, 2011 @12:16PM (#37242684)
        GreaseMonkey scripts can run in Chrome; just drag and drop them into the Chrome window. They can be enabled/disabled in chrome://extensions.
  • Zarro boogs found (Score:5, Interesting)

    by johnwbyrd (251699) on Monday August 29, 2011 @11:46AM (#37242326) Homepage

    Oh how the times have changed. For info about QA for Netscape 4.0, see this short refresher course:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zarro_boogs [wikipedia.org]

    --- cut here --

    The following comment is provided in the Bugzilla source code to developers who may be confused by this behaviour:
    Zarro Boogs Found
    This is just a goofy way of saying that there were no bugs found matching your query. When asked to explain this message, Terry Weissman (an early Bugzilla developer) had the following to say:
    I've been asked to explain this ... way back when, when Netscape released version 4.0 of its browser, we had a release party. Naturally, there had been a big push to try and fix every known bug before the release. Naturally, that hadn't actually happened. (This is not unique to Netscape or to 4.0; the same thing has happened with every software project I've ever seen.) Anyway, at the release party, T-shirts were handed out that said something like "Netscape 4.0: Zarro Boogs". Just like the software, the T-shirt had no known bugs. Uh-huh. So, when you query for a list of bugs, and it gets no results, you can think of this as a friendly reminder. Of *course* there are bugs matching your query, they just aren't in the bugsystem yet...
    --Terry Weissman

  • by Gerv (15179) <gervNO@SPAMgerv.net> on Monday August 29, 2011 @11:47AM (#37242330) Homepage

    Mozilla has no such position as "Community Lead". Tyler was/is (he is still engaged in constructive discussion) a valued volunteer member of the Mozilla QA and triage community, but he does not have the title "Community Lead".

    There are several things which Mozilla's new more rapid release process has made a bit rocky, as Johnathan Nightingale, the Firefox development manager, noted in a recent blog post [johnath.com] (syndicated at the Future of Firefox blog [mozilla.com]). This is one of them.

    And, of course, when Tyler says we have told bug reporters we don't care about their bug reports, that's not actually true. He is suggesting that this is what it might seem like. And clearly, it's not great when a bug report is filed and just sits there for months. Mozilla's success has made this a perennial problem for the last decade. We've cracked it, to a degree, before and I'm sure we can do it again.

    • by Jay L (74152)

      we have told bug reporters we don't care about their bug reports, that's not actually true. He is suggesting that this is what it might seem like.

      As a longtime Firefox and Thunderbird bug submitter, let me assure you that this is in fact what it does seem like, and so it is effectively true. I've had some bugs open for 7 or 8 years; I recently saw a bug report complaining that it'd been open for 11. This doesn't cover those odd, irreproducible cases users will always submit - these were just plain bugs.

      I w

    • by chrb (1083577) on Monday August 29, 2011 @12:23PM (#37242802)
      Problems with bug triage and inflation aren't just a Firefox problem. Gentoo's bugzilla reports 1557 bugs in state UNCONFIRMED and over 5k NEW bugs. RHEL5 has 2276 bugs in state NEW. Ubuntu has over 50k bugs in state NEW across all releases. Microsoft once let slip that Windows 2000 had over 63k known bugs. Bugs languishing in an open state for a long time is a recognised problem, but nobody really has a good answer. Ubuntu's automated periodic "is this fixed yet?" posts and followup bug closures on no response is one way to do it, but there is definitely room for improvement.
    • by geogob (569250)

      Although he may not have that official title, some people get this title naturally. In every project, some people will shine above the others with natural leadership which might lead them to be recognized as community leaders. For outsiders or newcomers, the distinction might be hard to make. Maybe the wording is simply inappropriately chosen here, presenting it as an official position.

    • by Hatta (162192) on Monday August 29, 2011 @12:30PM (#37242898) Journal

      And, of course, when Tyler says we have told bug reporters we don't care about their bug reports, that's not actually true. He is suggesting that this is what it might seem like.

      This is actually worse. If you're not going to act like you care about bug reports, don't tell people you do care about bug reports.

      • by Blakey Rat (99501)

        It's worth noting that Mozilla is still far, far better than pretty much every open source project ever at managing its bug database.

        Chromium developers don't even pretend to use the bug database. Even bugs here at Slashdot are utterly ignored 95% of the time.

        "Saying we value bug reports and then ignoring our bug database" is pretty much standard operating procedure in the open source world. Kudos on Tyler Downer for making a stand.

      • by Gerv (15179) <gervNO@SPAMgerv.net> on Monday August 29, 2011 @12:55PM (#37243222) Homepage

        We do care about bug reports, and we try and appear we care about bug reports - both by saying that we care, and trying to handle them. But Tyler is suggesting that our failure to handle all of them means that it might appear that our actions speak louder than our words.

        If you want to help the two match up, do get involved with Mozilla :-) We could always use more help. Triage is how I got involved, over 10 years ago.

        • by guanxi (216397)

          We do care about bug reports, and we try and appear we care about bug reports - both by saying that we care, and trying to handle them. But Tyler is suggesting that our failure to handle all of them means that it might appear that our actions speak louder than our words.

          If you want to help the two match up, do get involved with Mozilla :-) We could always use more help. Triage is how I got involved, over 10 years ago.

          Gerv - I don't doubt your good intentions, but given that you know that most bugs are not carried through to resolution (i.e., a change in released software), you should set that expectation with people who work on bugs. Don't set an expectation based on what you hope to someday be true (but probably won't ever happen). Likely, their bug reporting/triage/patching will not lead to anything useful; as long as you're up front about it with people, there's no problem.

  • Mozilla will revert the whole-number version scheme. Major_version.minor_version.bug_patch, or even Major_version.bug_patch, was not a bad arrangement at all, why reinvent the wheel?

    • by Kjella (173770) on Monday August 29, 2011 @12:13PM (#37242634) Homepage

      why reinvent the wheel?

      Because after long enough time, there's always someone who's irked about the performance of the wheel and wants to replace it with conveyor belts or robot legs. Sometimes even square wheels. And because we've done round wheels for so long, old lessons have faded or been deemed outdated and so we try it. Then it turns out it's not that great except for very limited use cases, but we're too deep invested and stubborn so we'll try fixing it. After a lot of fighting against windmills, we slowly reinvent and rediscover the reasons why we used a wheel in the first place. Then the cycle starts over. Same with most NIH projects, they start out as being radically different and then end up looking much the same after tackling the same challenges.

    • by rwven (663186)

      Obviously the original wheel wasn't round enough...

  • by LordLimecat (1103839) on Monday August 29, 2011 @11:47AM (#37242336)

    Just to clear some things up and possibly prevent irrelevant posts...

    This has nothing to do with the rapid-release; he states in the 2nd paragraph that

    First off, I did not leave because of rapid release. I love the idea of rapid release, and I think the recent spurt of posts to the planet on how Rapid Release will be beneficial in the long run does a great job of explaining it.

    His issue is that Triage isnt good enough for rapid release-- not that rapid-release doesnt work with Triage (but thanks for stirring the muck, anonymous reader / soulskill).

    But Id like a clarification-- if there were 13,000 bugs 15 months ago, and now there are 6000, doesnt that speak to massive improvement? Why not leave back in spring 2010?

    • by sl4shd0rk (755837)

      But Id like a clarification-- if there were 13,000 bugs 15 months ago, and now there are 6000, doesnt that speak to massive improvement? Why not leave back in spring 2010?

      Well, IIRC, unconfirmed bug reports (UNCO) are where every bug submission goes before it gets triaged. These bug reports run the gamut of "My internets not working with Firefox" to "Firefox dumps core with gtk+-2.0.3-foobar". It sounds like a lot of bugs, but UNCO is the large gaping pit where every bug report goes before it becomes confirmed. It takes no technical knowlege to issue an UNCO so many of these could just be PEBCAK bugs.

    • I tried googling but all I get are hits about a college. No one ever defines what UNCO is. I even found INCO, but no definition for that either.

      • I would guess that it meight stand for UNCOrrected.

      • The last time I searched Bugzilla, its search results displayed the first four characters of a bug's status and resolution type. These are usually UNCO(nfirmed), NEW, RESO(lved) DUPL(icate), etc. I'd provide more detailed instructions, but there appears not to be an way to click through to a search result on bugzilla.mozilla.org that doesn't involve typing. (Ook!)
      • Re:What is UNCO? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Smallpond (221300) on Monday August 29, 2011 @12:12PM (#37242628) Homepage Journal

        I tried googling but all I get are hits about a college. No one ever defines what UNCO is. I even found INCO, but no definition for that either.

        UNCO is short for UNCONFIRMED, the state a bug is in between being filed and being rejected because its asking for something a general user would want.

    • by hedwards (940851)

      Depends, were there 13k bugs or was that 13k bug reports. Often times you can nominally reduce the number significantly by going through and merging or closing duplicate reports and get a seemingly significant reduction in bugs without changing any code.

      Also, many of them may have been related to code which is no longer present in Firefox.

      • by BZ (40346)

        13k unconfirmed bug reports.

        Almost certainly fewer than 13k bugs in those.

    • by guanxi (216397)

      But Id like a clarification-- if there were 13,000 bugs 15 months ago, and now there are 6000, doesnt that speak to massive improvement? Why not leave back in spring 2010?

      IIRC, most of the decrease was because they automatically closed old, unconfirmed (UNCO) bugs that weren't being worked on. Which sent the same message to the people who took the time to file the reports that Tyler Downer decries: "Thank you for filing a bug report with us. We donâ(TM)t really care about it" or about your time.

    • by bjourne (1034822)

      But Id like a clarification-- if there were 13,000 bugs 15 months ago, and now there are 6000, doesnt that speak to massive improvement? Why not leave back in spring 2010?

      Number like that mean absolutely NOTHING. It MAY be that 7000 bugs have been solved in a proper way by one or more developers who has either committed a fix or closed the bug if it objectively does not indicate a problem with Firefox. Unfortunately, it is just as likely that the 7000 bugs have been closed by bug triagers obsessing over the

    • by Reservoir Penguin (611789) on Monday August 29, 2011 @12:33PM (#37242936)
      You are on a rapid release - we are NOT. Which means we are dropping FF support both internally and from supported browsers for our products. You made traditional QA impossible and support too expensive.
    • Out of those 13,000, I closed about 5,000 because the reporters hadn't replied after a certain period of time. It was a cleanup, not proper triage. If we had a quick response time, we probably wouldn't have gotten to 13,000. And unfortunately, without fixing the process, we will be at 13,000 again.
    • Basically, bugs have a lifecycle [bugzilla.org] - they may start out UNCOnfirmed, move to confirmed, then in progress, then resolved and finally rest in verified.

      I used to do volunteer triage for Mozilla back in 2000 (folks like Gerv, Timeless and Asa probably don't remember me though ;). I even have an old out of date page called kill-unco [sucs.org].

      However the reality is that there a lot of people filing bugs at a rate that is very high. Generally speaking there are not enough people to look at bugs at the best of times and this

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 29, 2011 @11:55AM (#37242442)

    Firefox gets personas, syncs, tab groups, etc. instead of bug fixes.

    GNOME3.

    Unity.

    Version number treadmills.

    Ad nauseam.

    Change for the sake of change. Bleeding edge bullet points for the bloggers instead of bugfixes for the users.

    How about returning to our roots and building software which runs faster with less bugs. There are plenty of commercial options for those who want the glassy artwork and UI equivalent of smooth jazz.

    How about software for people who need to get things done.

    Remember when we took pride in something like Apache being vastly superior to IIS? Now the community seems to hang its head in shame that Mac has spiffier icons and a hipper dock or Chrome gets new version numbers on a faster schedule.

    • Then get to work. Start submitting patches. Advocate for your vision. Otherwise, don't support the products that run counter to it.
  • Has anybody told Captain Smith there's an iceberg ahead?

    I guess Firefox has chosen to hand it's considerable market share back over to MS. Many users who left IE over the countless bugs and security issues. The benefit of switching to Mozilla/Firefox is quickly evaporating with each half-assed bug filled release. Plug in hell. Run away memory usage. Unpleasant GUI changes. Change for the sake of change.

    So will users flee to Chrome or will gravity pull them back to IE?

    • Sad, but for the first time since the mid-nineties when I started using Netscape, I'm considering switching. That includes the Netscape6, pre 1.0 Mozilla days.

      None of my plugins work and I'm asked to install and upgrade major versions every few weeks it seems.

      Microsoft has the nasty habit of tying their Browser releases to their OS sales. That's why you won't be able to install IE 10 to Vista, or IE 9 to XP. Also, they don't backport the render engine as a middle ground. How about an IE 8.5 that has mu

    • by DogDude (805747)
      I moved all of my personal and business machines to Chrome months ago because of everything that you described. We still have IE as a fallback for crappy government web sites that require IE. After moving to Chrome, I'm still kicking myself for not getting rid of the headache that Firefox became much earlier than I did. This is one of those cases when I feel that the lack of a top down organizational structure has really hurt the final product. Management by committee rarely works out well.
  • by jeffmeden (135043) on Monday August 29, 2011 @11:57AM (#37242470) Homepage Journal

    We currently have 2,598 UNCO bugs in Firefox that haven’t been touched in 150 days. That is almost 2600 bugs that have not been touched since Firefox 4 was released. ... In Spring 2010, we hit roughly 13,000 UNCO bugs in the Firefox product on BMO. 13,000!!! We currently have 5,934.

    In a related story, from this point forward "Debbie Downer" is no longer the correct pseudonym for an overtly depressing person. Hereafter, that person shall be cited as "Tyler Downer".

    All hail our new horribly sad overlord.

  • As 13 years are not enough to handle a major bug [mozilla.org].
    They are focusing on HTML5 (which is not a standard but a draft) and leave HTML4 implementation with all existing bugs.
    They think that all web pages will be rewritten in HTML5 as soon as it will land as real standard. It will instead take years.

    • by BZ (40346)

      The problem with that bug is that the HTML 4 requirement in question is not really consistent with the CSS layout model.

      So you can have that HTML feature or you can have CSS applying to your HTML, but not both. Your pick. Most people seem to have picked CSS.

  • While not directly related to Firefox, I submitted a bug for Thunderbird's import mechanism about 6-12 months post launch. Every year or so I get someone else posting to this still outstanding issue...

    Bug fixes/support, the achilles heal of FOSS. Where are these folks who want to maintain existing software? Paging all autistic OCD programmers!

    -rt

    • It's not just a FOSS issue. There are bugs throughout commercial software that never get fixed. They usually promise that it will be fixed with the next release, though often it never does, but you've paid $6k a seat, so you build a workaround.

      • So true, there are major issue that can be found in every single version of windows from 95 to 7 (and maybe even before, I have not checked).

    • by rehabdoll (221029)

      My *critical* top100 bug from 2002-02-07 is still opened.

      Assigned To: Nobody; OK to take it and work on it

      Nice

  • It is only natural that with open source bugs gather less volunteer enthusiasm. Ask any programmer and I doubt they enjoy squashing bugs over implementing new features. Debugging is the grunge work, or rather, the toilet cleaning of coding, yet it can also be the hardest part, requiring your very best resources.

    With that said, IE sucks the worse. Just imagine how many bugs IE would have if they had the same bug reporting system? "Our software has bugs, we don't care, and we are sitting on billions of dollar

    • But doesn't the mozilla foundation make millions of dollars per year? Can't they afford a team of dedicated engineers to close out these bugs? This isn't some scrappy open source project anymore. It's making serious money which begs the question .... where is that money going?
  • Some Clarification. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Tyler Downer (2449322) on Monday August 29, 2011 @12:29PM (#37242886)
    First off, I never intended my post to be taken in the way that it was. Simply because there are 6000 UNCO bugs in the Firefox product does not mean that Firefox has 6000 bugs in it. Out of all those bugs, the majority are going to be duplicates of other bugs, they are going to be user error, they are going to be bugs caused by a misbehaving extension that a user installed on Firefox, and so on. Out of all those 6000 bugs, I'd estimate at most there are 1000 REAL bugs in Firefox, and that is an extremely high guess. What I was trying to say is that without going through and triaging all those bugs, we have no way of knowing which are real and should be taken seriously, and which are not real bugs. If you read https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/page.cgi?id=fields.html#status [mozilla.org], you will see: "This bug has recently been added to the database. Nobody has validated that this bug is true. Users who have the "canconfirm" permission set may confirm this bug, changing its state to NEW. Or, it may be directly resolved and marked RESOLVED. " An UNCO bug has not be confirmed yet, it needs to be marked as NEW before it is considered a real bug. So it isn't fair to say that Firefox shipped with 6000 bugs, but more that there are roughly 2600 bugs that haven't been touched in 150 days, which is far more worrisome to me. We will never be able to have 0 bugs, but we may at least have a quick response to the bugs we do get. That is what my whole blog post was about, quick responses, and treating our reporters fairly. Unfortunately, Conceivably Tech was too eager to get a shocking headline, and so misconstrued my points. If you come back to re-read my blog in a day or two, I'll post more clarifications.
    • Hey Tyler,

      I have some questions:

      1. Do you feel that things like the unconfirmed and verified states are helpful in bug trackers that see high traffic?
      2. How do you feel about really old bugs that are difficult to fix (perhaps they are feature requests?) being used as ammunition against a project? Is this a problem worth solving? If you have those surely bugs less than a few years old aren't so bad?
      3. What are your thoughts on auto reminders to auto close bugs? What do you see as the tradeoff (if there is one)?
      4. If you
  • What? (Score:5, Funny)

    by bmo (77928) on Monday August 29, 2011 @12:30PM (#37242908)

    >In Spring 2010, we hit roughly 13,000 UNCO bugs in the Firefox product on BMO.

    Don't blame this shit on me.

    --
    BMO

  • There are bugs that where introduced back when I was still in high school like 5-6 years ago that I am still waiting on.

  • so quit adding new features and focus only on fixing the bugs, put all your resources on the bug fixing
  • by guanxi (216397) on Monday August 29, 2011 @12:47PM (#37243104)

    Mozilla's objective should be to release great software, not to close bug reports. In fact, if they can release the software while touching fewer bug reports, that's more efficient.

    The problem is that Mozilla continues to be careless about setting their community's expectations (on other issues too). They solicit bug reports from people, who invest time and effort in reporting, testing, following up, and even patching -- but then Mozilla does nothing with the bugs. It's disrespectful to use people's time like that.

    Mozilla needs to set expectations clearly from the start: Feel free to report it, triage it, patch it, etc., but realize that most bug reports are never implemented.

  • Is this push for more features, more releases, and lower quality coming from the people Google has working on Mozilla? Google has an incentive to migrate people to Chrome, where they define and control the platform.

  • Okay, we get it now. Being a leading browser is a huge deal, and it's a massive thing just to keep up with the bug reports, much less the bugs themselves.

  • by Ant P. (974313) on Monday August 29, 2011 @12:59PM (#37243280) Homepage

    I know of a troll who files bug reports just to piss people off; last time he tried to claim an About window displaying the same information as every other GUI app in existence is "a bug and confusing people". Maybe you should ban people like him from the system, just saying.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Tyler Downer (2449322)
      Yes, and those People are banned after fair warning. So we already have steps to try to control spam.
  • by lbalbalba (526209) on Monday August 29, 2011 @03:04PM (#37245052)
    Sadly, I have had similar experiences with PHP where my web server dumped core the moment the php module was loaded by the web server. I faithfully reproduced the issue, and included back traces in the reports, for over 8 months long with god knows how many different versions of PHP. The results were always the same, and every time a developer finally got around to looking at the bug report, they simply said: "you are running an old version of PHP, please retry with the latest version.". After zillions of retry's of different PHP versions with the exact same backtrace, I decided to give up and stated so in the bug report. The bug was then closed as 'BOGUS'.

On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. -- Cartoon caption

Working...