This is just a tracking bug tracking those bugs that appear to be of
substantially greater interest to the Mozilla community than the "average" bug.
The initial criteria are:
1) More than 100 votes; or
2) More than 50 CCs; or
3) More than 50 dups
Setting QA. Sorry for the spam (no way to set QA at filing time).
On second thought, 50 is a pretty high number for a CC and dup count. Let's try
it with 25 and see how that works out.
Feel free to add bugs that meet this criteria. Since you can't search on the
nu,ber of CCs or dups, it's gonna have to be manual.
email@example.com: Why remove 32157?
Uh, sorry.. i was just CC'ing myself..
Seems like bugzilla doesn't like me ;)
For the mose-duplicated bugs, see http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/duplicates.cgi ...
I have just added the remaining bugs with at least 50 dupes drom there.
Well, I think that 50 dupes is a good threshold. Lowering it to 25 would add
quite a lot of bugs (see http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/duplicates.cgi).
Some Suggested Bugs to add:
bug 91662: Long strings in mail or news header cause scroll bars and attachment
window to disappear, making message unreadable
CC's: ~80, Votes: 32, Dupes: ~50
bug 92380: Context menu in Personal Toolbar incorrect when Sidebar items selected
CC's: 17, Votes: 4, Dupes: ~12
bug 73712: Check in windows desktop/taskbar icons
CC's: 87, Votes: 55, Dupes: 40
Bug 56052: Support PGP in PSM
CC's: 48, Votes: 88, Dupes: 1
PS. I mentioned this bug in the "Make mozilla 1.0.1 and 1.1 not suck" bugs (bug
158377 and bug 157592).
PPS. Too bad THIS bug doesn't have enough CC's or votes yet, or it could depend
on *itself* :-D
is this meta bug really necessary?
the most duplicated and most voted bugs can be listed already, and I'm not sure
that "bugs with most people CC'd" is a useful indicator.
if this bug is useful, then the summary is a bit unclear - "major" bugs already
have a definition, and the bugs here aren't necessarily major problems, they're
just things that lots of bugzilla users are interested in. maybe "most visible
the 25 threshold certainly seems too low (that will bring in many hundreds of
bugs), 50 is better. I'm not sure why you set the votes threshold much higher
compared to the ccs threshold - there are only 35 bugs with 50 votes, but there
are many more bugs than that with a cc list of 50.
also, which components are you including? is there any point in having resolved
bugs on the list?
How is this different from bug 92997? Please don't add another bug to spam people.
> The initial criteria are:
> More than 100 votes; More than 50 CCs; More than 50 dups
I agree with michael lefevre. If you have hard criterias, use bugzilla queries
(or code some new).
> the most duplicated and most voted bugs can be listed already, and I'm not sure
> that "bugs with most people CC'd" is a useful indicator.
The point of this bug is not to count how many CCs there are, count how many
dups there are, or list top vote bugs just for the sake of counting. This bug is
here for the purpose of having a bug that tracks the issues that are most
important to the Mozilla community. Other similar bugs do not have arbitrary
criteria for bugs which can be added, and instead are just kind of touchy feely
about what counts as "good enough" for the bug.
> if this bug is useful, then the summary is a bit unclear - "major" bugs already
> have a definition, and the bugs here aren't necessarily major problems, they're
> just things that lots of bugzilla users are interested in. maybe "most visible
> the 25 threshold certainly seems too low (that will bring in many hundreds of
> bugs), 50 is better. I'm not sure why you set the votes threshold much higher
> compared to the ccs threshold - there are only 35 bugs with 50 votes, but there
> are many more bugs than that with a cc list of 50.
> also, which components are you including? is there any point in having
> resolved bugs on the list?
All components which are part of the trunk or branch Mozilla builds. I can think
of two reasons to include resolved bugs: 1) It allows one to get an idea, at a
glance, at what the fix-rate is of bugs that the community values most, and 2)
sometimes bugs have their scope changed and are marked fixed when they aren't
really (bug 120327 comes to mind).
> How is this different from bug 92997? Please don't add another bug to spam
See first response of mine above.
> I agree with michael lefevre. If you have hard criterias, use bugzilla queries
> (or code some new).
Can you have a query email you when one of the bugs in your query changes state?
Ok. The final criteria will be 50-50-50, votes, cc, dups.
I think CCs are a relatively good gauge of interest. People add their name to
the CC list because they are interested in what happens with that bug.
Sometimes CCs represent people who don't want the bug fixed, but want to monitor
what's going on.
This bug has major severity, naturally. It's kind of the "skeletons in the
What about the problem with marquee being enabled by default? I wouldn't really
call it "major," of course. More like ultra-blocker. (No, I'm not on strike.)
Other major concerns of mine include profile corruption, as in bug 123929.
I hate <marquee> as much as the next guy, but this bug isn't about what I like,
or what any other single person likes. There are already other bugs that track
bugs on the basis of opinion. If the <marquee> bugs get enough votes, dups, or
CCs to meet the criteria, add them by all means.
This bug is to have a tracking bug with objective and predefined criteria so
that it is free from the opinions of any one person or small group.
I'm afaird that the bug about adding IE DOM handler (document.all and such)
where are many, many CC'd peoples who are against this, will be added here with
In answer to comment #12 and #7 is bug #76831. This bug have been around for
almost 1 1/2 years but it does not yet break the 50-50-50 barrier.
58 - CCs
27 - votes
11 - Dups
Does this count?
it would make way more sense to collect bugs, which are called _outside_ of
Bugzilla very very often as an argument not to use Mozilla. That are News
Filters, Roaming, Startup time and some more...
Clarification: There doesn't need to be 50 each of CC's, votes, and duplicates
-- just 50 of one of those fields.
In response to comment #16: I would file those under bug 92997. It seems tailor
made for those kinds of things. If there isn't a bug for these things, make one.
That's what Bugzilla is for.
1. It is not obvious to me that a bug with significant community interest
would necessarily make advocacy harder. It could well be something that
the other major browsers also get wrong or don't implement, but that
a lot of people would like to see. Therefore, this bug is IMO quite
distinct from bug 92997.
2. We should be careful not to infer too much from Cc. We know what
vote means, but Cc does not necessarily mean the same. People may
be Cced for several reasons -- because they want it fixed, because
they emphatically *don't* (this is more common than you think),
because they have been consulted by the assignee or someone else
about some aspect of the bug, because they filed a dupe, ...
In addition, there are a few people (perhaps a hundred) who are
Cced to _large_ numbers of bugs (and then turn down what types of
changes they get mail for). Some of them systematically Cc
themselves to all bugs in a given component, for example. This
makes it a lot easier for a bug to get 50 names on the Cc list than
to get 50 dupes. I'm not saying that lots of Ccs means nothing,
only that we should be careful about reading _too_ much into it.
3. Duplicates imply more than just interest. Large numbers of dupes
also imply that a bug is hard to find by searching, either because
it has a bad summary, or because it manifests itself in a wide
assortment of ways. However, they do also imply interest.
4. I agree with comment 17 that bugs that receive a lot of interest
from _outside_ the community make advocacy harder and should be
dependencies for bug 92997. This bug is about interest from
people who already use Mozilla. However, I do think there are
sources of information about this other than Bugzilla that might
be worth considering, such as perhaps features that have been
requested many times on n.p.m.wishlist.
Adding bug 70030 "Cannot stop animation with stop button or escape key":
50+ CCs, 45 votes
Adding bug 78510 - 82 CCs 81 votes 20 dups
queried bugzilla for all bugs with 50>= votes;
the following bugs are not included in the dependency list of this bug:
bug # votes summary
bug 17483 94 [RFE] implementation of news filters
bug 94035 91 Allow blocking of any media type
(flash, plug-in, etc.)
bug 18808 90 [RFE] New windows/tabs should inherit
bug 11033 81 Filter after the fact
bug 22056 76 Show toolbars as text/icons/both
should appear as tabs
bug 113574 76 Add site icons (favicons) to sidebar,
manage bookmarks, etc
bug 36557 66 LDAP Support
bug 23508 59 Cookie confirmation dialog
should show all data
bug 105547 59 Windows open in new window
instead of tabs
bug 58937 57 Flash crashes on remote display
bug 18266 53 Query IMAP folders other
than INBOX for new msgs
bug 60981 51 Multipart news messages:
no combine and decode
query for 50>= votes
bug 33269 had 56 votes, but was then marked duplicate of bug 38486. Adding bug
38486 based on that.
Is this list seperated by platform - A hundred bugs on a Mac version is not too
Maybe the Bugzilla.org can add a directory for TOP 50 bugs per platform as an
aid in finding these nasty buggers, and as an incentive to get them solved.
Suggest bug 62429: Replying with the "start my reply above the quoted text" pref
on should _prepend_ the signature above the quote text.
It doesn't have all the votes or CC's, but it will greatly interest a *large*
number of regular users (who typically don't participate here).
This bug was unwisely wontfixed. Please see bug 62429 comment #70 on how all
objections could easily be dealt with.
added bug 145579
Bug 135331 should probably be added as this has large community interest and 63
Adding Bug 171441 (70 Dupes at the moment)
Nominating bug 121540 – Use ATSUI for text rendering on Mac OS X. 30 votes and
30+ cc:s in the Mac community corresponds to 600 votes and 700+ cc:s in the
Wintel community, using "world market share" as a correlation factor.
Nominating bugs to make <marquee> optional:
I agree with Micheal K in Comment #23, it would be good to see such a 'top bugs'
list seperated into several different platform specific lists. This would also
help the majority of developers who only work with one platform.
Adding bug 22775 (with 55 votes) about autoscroll/panning.
Bug 18004: Mozilla should support resumable downloads (50 CC's). My comments
from that bug:
"I would label any internet application that does not support resuming as
crippled. It is unintuitive for a program to restart any interrupted download
from the beginning."
nominating bug 92033
53 votes and CCs.
bunch more from a query on bugs with 50 votes...
> Ok. The final criteria will be 50-50-50, votes, cc, dups.
nominating bug 163993 which has 86 CCs.
nominating bug 45375
50 votes and 54 CCs.
Bug 163993 is this bug. A bug cannot block itself.
nominating bug 122411. 50 CCs.
nominating bug 55690 -- 79 cc's
Added bug 55690
Looking through most duped bugs (30+) and adding:
Bug 915 - column style resolution for text-align,vertical-align not yet
57 votes, 56 CCs, 35 dups
Bug 36816 - news should use the server's username / password when authenticating
54 votes, 29 CCs, 32 dups
Bug 50255 - some control key sequences don't generate the correct event
31 votes, 70 CCs, 34 dups
Bug 79889 - Download progress dialog too small [clipped on right side]
7 votes, 55 CCs, 36 dups
Bug 104532 - Status bar ticker fails to update when tabs switched.
44 votes, 67 CCs, 34 dups
Bug 84128 is on the border of counting - exactly 50 CCs at the mo
Added bug 62429 with 53 votes. Option to put mail signature above the quoted
message (i.e. with the reply) when top posting
Added Bug 11056 - Implement new mail check standalone app (nsnotify) since it
now has 50 votes.
Bug 33732 - [MW] mouse wheel scrolls listbox, even when cursor is outside listbox
45 votes, 69 CCs, 42 dups
Nominating bug #18574 which has 50 votes, 20 of them cast in the past
12 hours or so to request restoring MNG animation and JNG image support
that were removed from the trunk yesterday.
Bug 57724 - View source munging pages (does not display original page source as
sent by server)
25 votes, 62 CCs, 0 dups (but several ex-dups)
Bugzilla Bug 38966
Privacy and Security [was Security Policies] pref panel work
76 CCs, 44 votes, 27 dupes.
BTW, how does one count the CCs, besides grabbing the source OPTION tags,
putting it into Textpad and getting the last line number, like I did?
(All of the rest of my bugs are either unpopular or already in the list.)
I just highlight the first email address in the list and start counting with
each press of the down-arrow key.
Nominating bug #195280 (Removal of MNG/JNG support).
It has 1 vote, 52 cc, no dupes. Votes opposing this bug are accumulating
in bug #18574, currently 286 (there were 240 this morning before it
was mentioned on slashdot).
bug 8589 has 60 cc:'s.
Adding bug 204374 - GDI Resources are used till the UI/website displays faulty
57 votes. This bug is a 1.4 BLOCKER.
Been awaiting the time to add this one...
Bug 72493 - support threaded, sorted view
34 votes, 51 CCs, 13 dups
Nominating Bug 107883 - Feature request: Remove from server after x days (POP)
This feature is needed by anyone who retrieves their mail from more than one
location. It would allow mail to stay on the POP server for x days and then be
automatically deleted by Mozilla mail, hopefully preventing the mailbox from
It has 50 CCs.
Bug 193638 - corrupt or lost pref.js / startup configuration error
0 votes, 39 CCs, 52 dups
Nominating bug #204520, MNG imgmng library takes up too much disk space.
31 votes, 59 cc, no dupes.
Updating bugs with 50 and more votes.
Nominate: bug #124750
36 dups, 28 Votes, 58 CC's
Added. You could've done this yourself.
0 CCs, 0 Votes, 0 Dupes...
What about 0 CCs, 0 Votes, 0 Dupes...?
As you can see, most of us, reading through the comments of a bug, don't see
what else you changed at the same time.
Someone added bug 219805 even though it had 0 CC's, 0 votes, and 0 duplicates.
Nominating bug #171082: 47 votes, 52 CCs, 3 Dupes.
bug 171082 is a Firebird bug. If we're tracking Firebird bugs with this as
well, there's probably a whole bunch. Particularly as Firebird bugs tend to get
more votes, because users get 100 votes for Firebird bugs rather than just 10.
Bug 88810 - Remove code that unnecessarily focuses/raises windows
35 votes, 52 CCs, 2 dups
Another long-standing bug finally qualifies!
Bug 162134 - [OSX] (Java, Real, QuickTime) XPCOM plug-ins draw on wrong tabs and
leave detritus during scroll
10 votes, 51 CCs, 35 dups
Nominated by votes:
bug 75866 - Viewing message for very short time shouldn't mark it as read
bug 91498 - New mail notification alert/beep even when message filtered to Trash
bug 120398 - ability to specify 'projection' CSS2 media
bug 189289 - No new mail notification (biff) when junk mail (spam) arrives
Bug #48570 "Allow votes against a particular enhancement request"
has 61 votes, 24 CC, 4 dupes.
But that's about Bugzilla, not the Mozilla client software as this bug is.
nominating bug 122698
35 votes, 51 CCs, 41 duplicates
Added comment 68 and comment 70 bugs and I think the Supreme court of bug 163993
will allow for this loose interpretation of "Mozilla Community" to mean anything
within the bug database for Mozilla.org at least until similiar tracking bugs
for every component are made (unless such tracking bugs already exist).
Addind more than 50 votes:
10713 - Implement CSS2/3 text-shadow property
108455 - Mozilla mail doesn't open URLs in system default browser
122445 - Spoof prevention: Warn if username/password in link (url) looks like
131106 - Make 'default browser' shouldn't steal image file associations from
131456 - Memory use does not go down after closing tabs
217004 - sometimes table renderes wrong depending on time the script needs
172817 - allow external source viewer/editor
210043 - Context menu "copy image" (not URL) to paste into image editing
211023 - Firebird needs bookmark sort fix from bug 205378
222157 - View Source: Save as, Find and Find Again don't work
Please do not add/remove new dependencies to this bug. It causes spam. You can
use queries or maintain it as links on a webpage.
You can turn it off in prefs if you don't want to get mail when a dependency is
Re: comment 73
Does this mean someone's going to kill this bug and move the content to an
Re: comment 74
Or take yourself off the CC list, depending on whether you want to stop watching
this bug or stop watching dependency changes.
Killing this bug and having the list (with email updates) kept somewhere else
(maybe a mozillazine forum thread would be suitable?) isn't a bad idea. Any
You can turn off email about dependency changes, but not in a narrow way - you
have to turn off notifications for "all other changes" IIRC.
And being cc'd on this bug isn't the issue - the problem is that the
dependency/blocker status is two-way - people watching any of the bugs on the
list also get notifications.
Until someone takes care of duplicating this list off bugzilla, instead of
complaining, just remove your CC. Thanks.
Michael: Ahhh, sorry I missed that. I guess I'd have to agree then that we
shouldn't add any more dependencies, but comments in the bug should be fine, right?
Adding bug 227241 - 50 votes
bug 10713: Implement CSS2/3 text-shadow property
An old one. Better than 70 votes.
Adding bug 168905: intelligent mail classification - 58 CCs
Nominating bug 135079 - on multiple/dual/secondary monitor setup,
highlighting/hover on items broken
It has 50 dupes.
50 dupes means it should be added. Adding.
Nominating bug 90198 - Fixed background makes scrolling painfully slow
65 CC's, 31 votes
Bug 245908 has neither 50 CCs, votes, or dupes.
nominating bug 101190 - window.open() in onclick, click anchor with new window
target, etc. while page is loading fail if popups are blocked
52 votes, 34 dupes
Nominating bug 102132 - Ability to move content areas from tabs into windows
62 CCs, 30 votes
Nominating bug 135137 - Profile data cannot be shared by multiple running instances.
66 CCs, 26 votes
Nominating bug 154892 - Splitting Absolutely positioned frames not implemented -
Missing second page of content when printing or print previewing this site
It just passed the 50 CCs mark. It also has 41 dupes, and 26 votes, and it was
mentioned many times lately as an annoying bug that should be fixed asap,
ideally before Firefox 1.0 ships.
Nominating Bug 9458 to implement inline-block in layout.
52 votes - 45 CC's
Note that bug 84128 is now at 58 votes, 81 CC's, and climbing, no longer on the
Nominating bug #257197 which has 52 cc's, 10 votes, no dupes.
Bug 243324 has 114 votes
You can email me when you want a bug added. You don't need to comment in the bug.
bug 151249 - 69 votes, 53 cc's
bug 203927 - 66 votes
bug 197813 - 66 votes
bug 121540 - 52 votes, 50 cc's
Bug 220900 Focus breaks, cut/copy/paste and other focus-dependent tasks broken
Adding bug 12286, 50 votes.
Adding bug 171349 (no taskbar or window icon under Windows 98/Me), 96 votes,
more than 30 duplicates.
when a bug is fixed, shouldn't we remove it from the dependancy list? it would
trim it down a bit
(In reply to comment #99)
> when a bug is fixed, shouldn't we remove it from the dependancy list? it would
> trim it down a bit
Nope -- they should remain on the list to retain the history of this bug's progress.
I agree, but the number is growing and growing. And in the future it'll be hard
to know exactly what left to be done unless we pay attention.
Could we use an alternative? I suggest when we create another "bug" as a
processed bug holder. When a bug, say 4302, is closed, it's trimmed from this
bug's dependency tree and re-injected as a dependence buy in that bug holder.
And in order to keep track, that bug could depend on this bug, or the other way
There's a hitch in this suggestion: if a bug is reopened, it has to be trimmed
from that bug and re-injected in this bug again.
(In reply to comment #101)
I meant "I suggest we create another ......"
> Could we use an alternative? I suggest when we create another "bug" as a
> processed bug holder. When a bug, say 4302, is closed, it's trimmed from this
There is no need for trimming! If you want a trimmed version, just see
Adding bug 56418, 57 votes.
Bug 147670 50 emails/31 dups
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8b2) Gecko/20050417 Firefox/1.0+
Bug 163993 depends on: 289480 (77 CC:, 51 Votes.)
Adding bug 154892 (Missing second page of content when printing) - 59 votes,
around 43 dupes, and 84 CCs.
Adding bug 255255 (after searching bookmarks, the results are not editable) - 69
Adding bug 252371 (incremental find/search in page does not find/highlight text
in textarea/form/text entry boxes) - 145 votes, 67 CCs.
Adding bug 231062 (Provide Firefox MSI package) - 69 votes, and also 69 CCs.
Adding bug 283730 ("Save As" dialog tries to overwrite link/shortcut (.lnk) file
instead of opening the directory/folder) -- 87 votes.
Adding bug 33339 (90 votes, 50 CCs)
Adding remaining bugs with over 50 dupes (from
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/duplicates.cgi) The bugs and the number of dupes to
them (as of now) are listed below.
Bug 58917 - 50
Bug 245392 - 50
Bug 83376 - 53
Bug 22964 - 54
Bug 21296 - 54
Bug 193749 - 59
Bug 180672 - 60
Bug 180309 - 61
Bug 205893 - 62
Bug 247833 - 77
Bug 245418 - 83
Bug 228968 - 90
All of the bugs with 50 or more duplicates (as of now) should now be listed as
blocking this bug.
Adding dependencies on remaining bugs with 50 or more votes (as of now.) The bug
IDs and the amount of votes are listed below.
Bug 2212 - 50
Bug 3013 - 58
Bug 10097 - 51
Bug 11034 - 102
Bug 11040 - 54
Bug 11055 - 56
Bug 11076 - 51
Bug 13595 - 71
Bug 17048 - 186
Bug 18722 - 51
Bug 18764 - 94
Bug 20304 - 52
Bug 20417 - 52
Bug 22689 - 64
Bug 23394 - 78
Bug 30057 - 53
Bug 36351 - 61
Bug 40867 - 55
Bug 41524 - 79
Bug 45715 - 73
Bug 52746 - 81
Bug 55057 - 64
Bug 58308 - 61
Bug 58612 - 136
Bug 64401 - 64
Bug 70132 - 55
Bug 75138 - 61
Bug 80142 - 65
Bug 83633 - 81
Bug 88870 - 63
Bug 91037 - 60
Bug 95067 - 72
Bug 98304 - 67
Bug 98971 - 61
Bug 105843 - 51
Bug 114656 - 100
Bug 116692 - 64
Bug 121948 - 60
Bug 121969 - 51
Bug 122659 - 113
Bug 123315 - 81
Bug 132035 - 59
Bug 134260 - 53
Bug 138198 - 122
Bug 144496 - 59
Bug 157004 - 75
Bug 163993 - 52
Bug 172818 - 62
Bug 172962 - 88
Bug 173762 - 64
Bug 175787 - 54
Bug 179656 - 105
Bug 186136 - 52
Bug 188938 - 235
Bug 201307 - 96
Bug 202615 - 76
Bug 204519 - 58
Bug 205011 - 137
Bug 208314 - 68
Bug 211628 - 51
Bug 216537 - 53
Bug 217199 - 64
Bug 218142 - 53
Bug 218223 - 51
Bug 222653 - 64
Bug 229686 - 92
Bug 230401 - 58
Bug 230870 - 105
Bug 231048 - 50
Bug 232272 - 52
Bug 232638 - 59
Bug 238137 - 57
Bug 241438 - 91
Bug 245163 - 52
Bug 247884 - 107
Bug 250309 - 96
Bug 255637 - 83
Bug 257859 - 61
Bug 258062 - 106
Bug 258285 - 53
Bug 270012 - 106
Bug 271815 - 82
Bug 274784 - 96
"Dependency Loop Detected
You can't make a bug blocked or dependent on itself." - Bah, oh well!
Right, all bugs with at least 50 votes, and all bugs with at least 50 dupes
included. Without direct SQL access, I can't search for CCs, so they can just be
added when they are stumbled upon.
I think at this point this has long outlived what usefulness it once had, and
the recent mass change has pushed it past the breaking point. Marking INVALID,
please don't make more changes to this bug.
So sayeth #developers, amen.
As the person who created this bug, I don't think it has outlived its usefulness
at all. The whole point of this bug was to have out in the open a list of bugs
that are most important to the people who use the product, and where it is easy
to see how many of these important bugs remain unfixed for long periods of time.
If the developers don't like this bug being so long, perhaps they can schedule
bug fixes based on what's important to the community rather than their own
personal pet projects and desires. If that were to happen, this bug wouldn't be
This bug is so large and unwieldy because the important bugs are not being
fixed, not because of some flaw in this bug.
I'm not looking or intending to start a debate here, and I certainly intend for
this to be the last comment I add here, but I don't want to leave the response
What you're describing sounds like advocacy tracking bug. That doesn't have a
place in Bugzilla. If we're looking at doing _anything_ based on votes, queries
are better anyway, instead of scraping a list of deps. This bug is useful for
random people interested in watching a large set of highly-voted bugs, but adds
nothing to the management of any of the projects it touches. It also has the
negative effect of intermittent bursts of spam, and gives the impression that
bugs on this list should automatically gain higher priority because 50 people
clicked a couple links. Bugs should always be rated on their merits, and not
just on the attention of a small group of people.
Anyone who uses Bugzilla quickly becomes aware that bugs are not fixed according
to their importance with users. At least we agree on that. I know it is, and has
been, the position of mozilla.org to keep any advocacy that conflicts with their
goals out of public view as much as possible. It looks bad to have a huge list
of bugs that many users are interested in seeing fixed being ignored for years.
It looks even worse when you can click on any bug in that list and read the
blatant, egotistical attitude frequently taken by drivers and others when
refusing to fix bugs because of petty personal vendettas and for other lame excuses.
As far as spam, there are email preferences if you do not want to receive bug spam.
However, I am sympathetic to the spam complaint. It would be just as effective
to list all of these bugs in a comment to this bug. That way you can still see
the list and see which are fixed, and which are not.
IMHO this bug was useful and it was useful to have all those high-visibility bug
in the dependencies filed. I used to be on the CC list of this bug for a
specific purpose - I enjoyed getting emails telling me some high-visibility bug
was fixed. If that meant that an often-requested feature was implemented, then I
might go and see if this is something I might be interested in too. Yes, there
are queries, but for me the point of this bug was in getting those emails
_without_ having to visit Bugzilla web site.
I agree with comment #117 - if you think this is spam, use email preferences and
email filtering on your end, but do not insist on getting rid of emails that
other people find useful.
They are going to ignore you. It's an old boys club. If your view doesn't match
theirs, they don't want to hear about it. Not only that, but they don't want you
using *their* Bugzilla for purposes they don't find useful. It's a hopeless
cause. Just use the half-assed browser and email client until someone with a
better agenda comes along.
This is supposed to be an "open" community isn't it? If a few people want to
track a few bugs, what does it matter to anyone outside of those few people?
Mike Connor, I'm sure you're a reasonable guy.... you may want to rethink this,
all you are doing by closing this bug is **** off a lot of people, and drive
more people AWAY from Mozilla development.
Just give it up, they wont listen, I mean look at that whole MNG fiasco.
(In reply to comment #115)
... perhaps they can schedule
> bug fixes based on what's important to the community rather than their own
> personal pet projects and desires. If that were to happen, this bug wouldn't be
> very long.
> This bug is so large and unwieldy because the important bugs are not being
> fixed, not because of some flaw in this bug.
(In reply to comment #116)
Bugs should always be rated on their merits, and not
> just on the attention of a small group of people.
Kinda funny juxtaposition of those two posts. I guess keeping this invalid is OK
as long as someone tracks this somewhere. Maybe on a post in the forums updated
daily like Peter's posts.
(In reply to comment #119)
> I agree with comment #117 - if you think this is spam, use email preferences
> and email filtering on your end, but do not insist on getting rid of emails
> that other people find useful.
Bugzilla is first and foremost a tool to help the Mozilla _developers_ do their
work. It is pretty much irrelevant how useful features here are to end users -
only how they affect the efficiency of developers.
Any developer even reasonably active has a stunningly large volume of daily
email to read. Changes in dependecies are usually really useful information for
these developers, alerting them to related bugs that might help them find out
who else is working on a problem, or what's related, or suggest fixes, or find
out that something that needed to be done before they could do something else
has now indeed be done, so that they can go and implement further fixes -
definitely not something they ever want to filter out.
What the latest mass change to this bug did was to spam pretty much every single
developer out there with a few to a few dozen notices that a bug they are
tracking in had gotten a dependency. Unfortunately bugzilla does not yet include
the summary of these dependencies, so that means that the mass change caused
each of these developers to manually go and waste time first reading the email,
then manually looking up the bug, wasting at least a few seconds scanning around
to see what it was about, and then delete or filter away or labeling the email.
Depending on how they sort their email, they then read a lot of other email
before coming to the next dependency change for the same bug (would they
remember the six digit bug number as being a non-relevant one? I doubt it...)
and have to go through the entire process again.
Time is really precious for these people, and I would imagine that this bug has
wasted _a lot_ of time for all of them. Don't whine that the combined group of
active developers has finally taken action on it.
Thank you all for the spam I'm getting since yesterday, including 30+ messages
> What |Removed |Added
> OtherBugsDependingO|163993 |
> nThis| |
This comment is my humble way of saying how grateful I am. This bug has never
created 1/10 of the joy am am feeling now knowing that many bugzilla bugs
(In reply to comment #124)
> the summary of these dependencies, so that means that the mass change caused
> each of these developers to manually go and waste time first reading the email,
> then manually looking up the bug, wasting at least a few seconds scanning around
This is correct. I just did this, and I agree that it's a waste of time.
I may build an application that queries every bug in this list on a daily basis
in order to duplicate the functionality that was had in this bug. If I do so, I
will notify everyone in this bug so they can choose to sign up for that list. I
fully expect the Mozilla developers to attempt to halt this as well, but thank
God for open proxies.
That's a great idea. The intention here was never to stifle
discussion/openness, it was about moving it out of our project management
application. The spam and advocacy comments that are becoming so commonplace
are making Bugzilla increasingly less useful. Putting up a community site that
tracks changes to bugs like this is not something I want to discourage at all.
We want open discussion and feedback, as long as its going places like the MZ
forums where it belongs.
If it helps, one option would be to do something similar to how the mozbots work
(subscribing an email and ccing the bugs directly, or watching certain
accounts). That would get all of the changes in a readily parseable format, if
you were so inclined. If you're focused on stats/statuses, you can do some
really neat things with the query formats available (CSV, feeds (except those
seem broken on bmo, pending the next Bugzilla version bump). There's some
existing bugzilla tracker setups, iirc, you might want to look around and see
what's worth reusing.
(In reply to comment #124)
> (In reply to comment #119)
> > I agree with comment #117 - if you think this is spam, use email preferences
> > and email filtering on your end, but do not insist on getting rid of emails
> > that other people find useful.
> Bugzilla is first and foremost a tool to help the Mozilla _developers_ do their
> work. It is pretty much irrelevant how useful features here are to end users -
> only how they affect the efficiency of developers.
Agree, developers take greatest priority. But there is no one or no group(s) in
the middle? There are no secondary groups, between end users and developers,
who are *actively* helping and working the cause? Most certainly the answer is
Terminating the bug is a quick fix. But shouldn't this 'incident' highlight the
need for changes or new set of functionality and not just focus on the extremes
of one (or more) group - however important that group may be?
[many great Sander comments deleted]
> Unfortunately bugzilla does not yet include the summary of these dependencies,
bug 97956 - which has gotten no love (and similar bug 125888)
I'm inclined to agree queries may well be the answer. But what queries is
mconnor speaking of? I understand vote queries. But how does one create a query
for duplicates? And get updates mailed when the "list" changes? Is it via
If there is discussion of these issues somewhere, please post the location.
With respect to all and sorry for the spammage.
(In reply to comment #128)
> The spam and advocacy comments that are becoming so commonplace
> are making Bugzilla increasingly less useful.
When other avenues of expression are ineffective, people try elsewhere. If you
want people to stay in the newsgroups or forums, those forums have to be
effective. If they are not effective, people will move on and escalate until it
CCing myself to be informed.
Jerry, you may (as well) post diffs to the list (which was useful!) right here
-- and hope the devs oppose only the idea of not-development-related dependencies.
(In reply to comment #118)
> Bug ...
I just voted for this bug today.
(also, it looks like someone
still needs to add a comment
which describes what "queries"
are -- and would it be useful
to have a MozillaZine thread
about this issue?)
Since this bug isn't the correct solution for community frustration, and
apparently no one cares how many votes a bug gets, what would be a good way for
the community to express what it feels is important?
(In reply to comment #132)
> (also, it looks like someone
> still needs to add a comment
> which describes what "queries"
> are -- and would it be useful
> to have a MozillaZine thread
> about this issue?)
"Queries" are what you do when you fill out the forms which you get by clicking
on any one of the various "Search" links on this page. Logging in to Bugzilla
(with username and password) also leads you to the query (or Search) page, where
you have a choice between "simple" and "advanced" search.
"Use queries instead" wrongly implies that Bugzilla can search for "(Votes > 49)
OR (CC Count > 49) OR (Duplicate Count > 49)". Bugzilla cannot. [It can search
either for (Votes > 49), or for (Duplicate Count > 30) using
Those who'd like Bugzilla to do such searches may wish to advocate enhancements
bug #62718 (Should have a way to search by number of CC:)
bug #204209 (Duplicates should be stored in main bugs table)
If the "queries" don't work, then this bug is the best we've got.