move to rawhide update (Fedora QA breakage)

[John Gilmore]

>   II. - What for me is an inhibitor is the bugzilla section "tell us 
> how to reproduce the problem".  I have no desire whatsoever to try 

Mikus unfortunately plays a troll on the Internet.  He probably isn't
one in real life, but the way he uses the XO is extremely unusual, so
he views the XO in ways that appear to be 77 degrees away from the
usual viewpoint.  His bug reports require careful interpretation if
you want to avoid immediately discarding them as worthless.

>                                          What good would it do for 
> me to enter a bugzilla report?  A dozen people would ask me for more 
> information, and for more "try this and try that".  I have better 
> things to do with my time.

I'm sad to report that I tried to participate in a Fedora QA "test
day" last week for some particular hardware I have (low end Radeon
graphics).  I filed one clear bug report, and four days later got the
usual "please send us lots of irrelevant info" form letter.  I filed a
testy reply telling them they don't need it and please stop pretending
to close out bug reports by demanding that the user send some
irrelevant info.  See:

  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=493748

One of these irrelevant busybodies self-identifies as one of the
Fedora "BugZappers" with this link:

  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers

  "We are a group of volunteers and Red Hat employees whose primary
  mission is to review and triage bug report submissions on
  bugzilla.redhat.com, acting as a bridge between users and developers
  to aid in fixing and closing bugs."

Now I see what's going on.  Clueless people are crashing around in the
bug database, "helping" developers by hassling users.  Then if you
don't answer the idiots, 30 days later they close out your bug report
as "CLOSED:INSUFFICIENT_DATA".  Instead of a bridge, they seem to be
more of a barrier, though perhaps they do good work somewhere.  I
think these are the same people who also trashed the "OLPC
suspend/resume is broken" bug report, by running a script that
declared it an obsolete problem that only applied to F10, even though
the problem persists long after F10.  But as the BugZapper credo says,
"No programming knowledge is necessary, and triagers don't necessarily
need to understand the bugs they are working on."

So I'll have to agree with Mikus's analysis of why not to bother
filing Red Hat bugzilla bugs.  Idiots will hassle you, and claim
that the bug doesn't exist after all, then close it.  (*)

	John

(*): At Cygnus, we wrote a bug tracking system, PRMS.  We made very
sure that nobody except the original submitter could close out a bug
report.  The only thing developers or QA people could do was put the
bug into "feedback" state, asking the original submitter to confirm
that the bug really is fixed.  I insisted on this process flow because
of the numerous companies I'd reported bugs to, who regularly closed
out my bugs without fixing them -- over and over.  I'd search the bug
reports at Sun and find six people all reporting the same bug I'd
encountered -- and all six of them closed inappropriately by somebody
whose "job" it was to close bug reports (not to fix bugs).  Cygnus's
customers appreciated the attention, even though it was sometimes a
hassle for us to nudge them to close out the bugs we really HAD fixed.