Last modified: 2011-04-05 22:12:52 UTC
Bugzilla lost all possibilities and references to voting. Please restore it asap, since this is the only way to find and track specific bugs.
Voting became a plugin in v4
(In reply to comment #0) > Please restore it asap, since this is the only way to find and track specific > bugs. CC feature :) But anyway its a extenstion thse days as reedy pointed out, althouth they really should invest time in making a "track these bugs" plugin for that, but that is another/upstream issue.
Its nice someone has upgraded Bugzilla but I am affraid that voting data is (was???) THE ONLY VALUABLE data this bugzilla ever had, so if you throw that away you probably can close the whole site... WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS ISSUE??? Sometimes I just can not believe my eyes when watching the progress Wikimedia projects make... its mostly like two steps backwards and one forward...
I think it's just an oversight, as I remember chad saying it was discussed, and was being kept As for being "THE ONLY VALUABLE data this bugzilla ever had", that's just rubbish. It wasn't even actually used for any sort of metric
(In reply to comment #3) > THE ONLY VALUABLE data this bugzilla ever had, so if you throw that > away you probably can close the whole site... I don't know.... The information in and about the bug reports seen pretty valuable to me...
(In reply to comment #3) > Its nice someone has upgraded Bugzilla but I am affraid that voting data is > (was???) THE ONLY VALUABLE data this bugzilla ever had, so if you throw that > away you probably can close the whole site... I really hope that you're in some exotic timezone which is 14 hours behind UTC and that this is a really bad April Fool joke. Otherwise, it's pretty pathetic. And utterly impossible: saying that the fact that someone voted on bug 12345 is more important than what bug 12345 is about, is a logical fallacy apart from anything else. I remain thoroughly unconvinced of the usefulness of votes; they're a very inaccurate measure of support for a bug, and in a volunteer development environment "level of support" doesn't really mean very much anyway. "tracking bugs" is what the CC feature is for, as comment 2 points out.
CC is not a replacement for specific kind of tracking provided by voting.
(In reply to comment #7) > CC is not a replacement for specific kind of tracking provided by voting. Would you care to elaborate? What are you able to track with voting that you can't track with a CC? (In reply to comment #4) > I think it's just an oversight, as I remember chad saying it was discussed, and > was being kept > It was discussed. I don't remember any firm outcome though. I personally find voting to be completely useless, but some people seem to like it...
> Would you care to elaborate? What are you able to track with voting that you > can't track with a CC? "List my votes" gives me a list with links and topics. CC jams my mailbox (often with ignorables like XYZZY is getting CCs now, too). Mailbox searches are not bad but pretty uneffective in comparison. > I personally find voting to be completely useless, but some people seem to like it... To me, Bugzilla was pretty useless without my votes restored. I rely on them.
(In reply to comment #9) > > Would you care to elaborate? What are you able to track with voting that you > > can't track with a CC? > > "List my votes" gives me a list with links and topics. > CC jams my mailbox (often with ignorables like XYZZY is getting CCs now, too). > Mailbox searches are not bad but pretty uneffective in comparison. > CC preferences *are* configurable, for what it's worth (for example: I changed my preferences to not send me e-mails only on a CC change, because you're right, that's bugspam). It's also possible to setup a saved search where a certain e-mail address (ie: your own) is on the CC list.
custom searches work perfectly well for me; votes gives you one quick-and-dirty tracking list, I have five in my sidebar :D
(In reply to comment #3) > Its nice someone has upgraded Bugzilla but I am affraid that voting data is > (was???) THE ONLY VALUABLE data this bugzilla ever had, so if you throw that > away you probably can close the whole site... > Might as well. There's too many pesky enhancement requests as it is ;-) > WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS ISSUE??? Sometimes I just can not believe my eyes > when watching the progress Wikimedia projects make... its mostly like two steps > backwards and one forward... This has nothing to do with the progress of Wikimedia. If you think taking voting out of the default Bugzilla installation was a bad idea, go complain to the Mozilla Foundation.
(In reply to comment #10) > > It's also possible to setup a saved search where a certain e-mail address (ie: > your own) is on the CC list. I've got a shared search of "\"My\" CC'd Bugs" and "All \"my\" bugs" Where "My" is the current user, not hardcoded to my email
*** Bug 28390 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
(In reply to comment #5) > I don't know.... The information in and about the bug reports seen pretty > valuable to me... Surely I exagerated way too much but this issue really made me angry. Votes would have no meaning without the bugs themselves of course. (In reply to comment #6) > I really hope that you're in some exotic timezone which is 14 hours behind UTC > and that this is a really bad April Fool joke. Otherwise, it's pretty > pathetic. And utterly impossible: saying that the fact that someone voted on > bug 12345 is more important than what bug 12345 is about, is a logical fallacy > apart from anything else. > > I remain thoroughly unconvinced of the usefulness of votes; they're a very > inaccurate measure of support for a bug, and in a volunteer development > environment "level of support" doesn't really mean very much anyway. "tracking > bugs" is what the CC feature is for, as comment 2 points out. FYI I am GMT +1. We finally are about to discuss bug assessment/evaluation/rating, which will hopefully give this site a meaning. A sophisticated modern place where development discussion boils down in an organized manner and decisions on the future are made is simply non-existing in whole Wikimedia and bug voting was the closest to this. Of course, this site should expand significantly to be able to host such a process or much better a specialized site should be launched in the look of some ideas bank (Dells ideastorm etc.). The general public should be able to supply priorities weighting at leaset 50% of the development made, the other 50% may be supplied by developer community as software performance is an important issue too of course. (In reply to comment #12) > This has nothing to do with the progress of Wikimedia. If you think taking > voting out of the default Bugzilla installation was a bad idea, go complain to > the Mozilla Foundation. You are wrong. There was an important feature removed from this site and I do not mind what the reason was. This is what matters, someone removed a feature from here. This has nothing to do with Mozilla Foundation but it has with this site's admins.
(In reply to comment #15) > (In reply to comment #5) > FYI I am GMT +1. We finally are about to discuss bug > assessment/evaluation/rating, which will hopefully give this site a meaning. A > sophisticated modern place where development discussion boils down in an > organized manner and decisions on the future are made is simply non-existing in > whole Wikimedia and bug voting was the closest to this. If you think that voting on bugs was the apotheosis of developer decision-making on Wikimedia, you are simply not inhabiting the same reality as the developers who actually do the coding round here. The developers have two IRC channels, four mailing lists, a bug tracker, a code review queue, a scratchpad and an entire wiki in their toolkit for hosting development discussions. They work perfectly adequately to allow such discussions to "boil down in an organised manner". If you think that such fora don't exist, you're just looking in the wrong place. > Of course, this site should expand significantly to be able to host > such a process or much better a specialized site should be launched in > the look of some ideas bank (Dells ideastorm etc.). The general public > should be able to supply priorities weighting at leaset 50% of the > development made, the other 50% may be supplied > by developer community as software performance is an important issue > too of course. You're making the mistaken assumption that the MediaWiki developers are in some way subservient to the whims of the members of whichever wiki you come from. The MediaWiki software is its own project with its own community, which produces a product that you happen to use and suggest improvements to. We are fortunate to have amongst that community a number of developers who are paid by the WMF to develop parts of that software for the specific benefit of the Wikimedia projects; but 80% of the MW developers are volunteers, and 95% of instances of MediaWiki wikis are not Wikimedia projects. Make no mistake, the MW developers are very interested in the bug reports and feature requests of MW users, and it's natural that Wikimedia projects are the source of the majority of those comments. Collecting and ordering those suggestions is the purpose of bugzilla.wikimedia.org. But treat the developers' sites as you would treat another Wikimedia project; the relationship between a wikipedia and Commons is an excellent example. You do not order Commons admins around, and you do not attempt to dictate the workflow and priorities of the Commons community. If you observe a problem, you point it out and engage in discussion where necessary. And everyone tries to work together to build a better future, because they're Nice People, not because someone is dictating to the other.
> If you think that voting on bugs was the apotheosis of developer > decision-making on Wikimedia, you are simply not inhabiting the same reality Correct me, if it has been removed meanwhile, but when I came to this buzilla installation in the beginning, I read a guide about "reporting bugs" which told me to vote for bugs so as to raise their priority and likelyhood of assement but to "not rely on this as automatic since developers are free to choose themselves" which was pretty fine for me. If voting had been useless and unwanted, it had not been announced this way and had been switched off in the first place. So now do not blame us that we used it. Btw., it looks like pulling the plug on voting was accidental. Commenting it: "What a great idea. I never used it." feels like a strange move to some of us.
(In reply to comment #17) > > If you think that voting on bugs was the apotheosis of developer > > decision-making on Wikimedia, you are simply not inhabiting the same reality > > Correct me, if it has been removed meanwhile, but when I came to this buzilla > installation in the beginning, I read a guide about "reporting bugs" which told > me to vote for bugs so as to raise their priority and likelyhood of assement > but to "not rely on this as automatic since developers are free to choose > themselves" which was pretty fine for me. If voting had been useless and > unwanted, it had not been announced this way and had been switched off in the > first place. So now do not blame us that we used it. Cf bug 1 :D I remember the page you're thinking of, and it did IIRC indeed say something like that. I'm not blaming anyone for anything apart from ignoring that "but to not rely on..." phrase. It's only "unwanted" in the sense that the *confusion it causes* is unwanted; other than that it's just amicably useless.
(In reply to comment #18) > > It's only "unwanted" in the sense that the *confusion it causes* is unwanted; > other than that it's just amicably useless. It is not useless. Two at least have expressed that they are using it, and it is useful for them. A word on "saved searches": I have ones, too. Bugzilla searches are for geeks who have lots background knowledge, or lots of time to figure things out despite them being pratically undocumented. They're unsuited for a mundane casual user, and they cannot be used to resemble the data presented by voting. Please stop discussing, and restore voting and votes.
(In reply to comment #19) > (In reply to comment #18) > > > > It's only "unwanted" in the sense that the *confusion it causes* is unwanted; > > other than that it's just amicably useless. > > It is not useless. Two at least have expressed that they are using it, and it > is useful for them. > > A word on "saved searches": I have ones, too. Bugzilla searches are for geeks > who have lots background knowledge, or lots of time to figure things out > despite them being pratically undocumented. They're unsuited for a mundane > casual user, and they cannot be used to resemble the data presented by voting. > > Please stop discussing, and restore voting and votes. But that's not the wikipedia way. We need to argue and "vote" for it for months on end, to come up with "no consensus"
Not sure why it requires 20 comments to say "enable the plug-in." As I recall, the person "in charge" of Bugzilla (Mark H.) was in favor of keeping this feature or something like it around. Until there's a better alternative, it's simplest and sanest to enable the plug-in to restore the lost functionality. It should take about a minute of time and doesn't require any further discussion about the nature of code development or the virtue of democratic systems.
(In reply to comment #21) > Not sure why it requires 20 comments to say "enable the plug-in." As I recall, > the person "in charge" of Bugzilla (Mark H.) was in favor of keeping this > feature or something like it around. Until there's a better alternative, it's > simplest and sanest to enable the plug-in to restore the lost functionality. It > should take about a minute of time and doesn't require any further discussion > about the nature of code development or the virtue of democratic systems. (In reply to comment #20) > (In reply to comment #19) > > (In reply to comment #18) > > > > > > It's only "unwanted" in the sense that the *confusion it causes* is unwanted; > > > other than that it's just amicably useless. > > > > It is not useless. Two at least have expressed that they are using it, and it > > is useful for them. > > > > A word on "saved searches": I have ones, too. Bugzilla searches are for geeks > > who have lots background knowledge, or lots of time to figure things out > > despite them being pratically undocumented. They're unsuited for a mundane > > casual user, and they cannot be used to resemble the data presented by voting. > > > > Please stop discussing, and restore voting and votes. > > But that's not the wikipedia way. We need to argue and "vote" for it for months > on end, to come up with "no consensus" As above. Priyanka commited in r85404, just needs pushing out to fix the bug...
(In reply to comment #22) > Priyanka commited in r85404, just needs pushing out to fix the bug... "After enabling the extension", DISABLED still needs to be removed from the plugins folder for it to be activated.
Fixed!
