Community
Participate
Working Groups
During the last 4 months, "the automated Eclipse Genie" intervened in at least 3 tickets I am subscribed to: https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=47346 https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=314805 https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=385481 I am not using the product affected by the last issue, which may have been solved, but in most cases, the issues persist. There are numerous issues with this: 1. The language of the comments is in large part full of jargon, cryptic and/or nonsensical. 2. It is unclear if some interventions can have value, but they cause incredible pollution/noise. 3. In some cases (all of the above), the Status is set to CLOSED. While this status is undefined, this seems to go against its intended usage (see #550416). 4. In some cases (all of the above), the Resolution is set to WONTFIX. I cannot see how an automated tool could reliably determine that a bug would not be fixed. If I understand the message correctly, these are not isolated cases, but just examples of a probably large number of tickets which simply weren't manipulated for "quite some time". And this has been going on for "quite some time". I easily found another ticket where Genie intervened 3 times, though not quite the same way: https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=370075 The first intervention (in that ticket) can be dated back to 2015. The final problem which multiplies the above is the lack of accountability, as the account is only identified by the "Eclipse Genie" pseudonym rather than the name of the person responsible for it. The message also fails to indicate how to report issues. I am however putting the email address "genie@eclipse.org" in the Cc field. I would recommend to start by disabling the account or otherwise ensuring the damage stops at least until a responsible person is identified. I can then open a different ticket to deal with what was already done. The tool seems to have good intentions, so reaching its owner may suffice to find a solution.
I'm afraid this still goes on (see #109481).
I'm sorry to report that this persists, as can be seen in ticket #376267. I hereby strongly recommend to disable the account involved.
This is as requested automation by some projects.
I'm afraid this actually persists, as demonstrated in ticket #559052: https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_activity.cgi?id=559052
Philippe, While I appreciate your willingness to help within the Eclipse community, and very much appreciate issues that question or challenge status quo, you've been reopening many issues that are not handled to your sole satisfaction. Likewise, many issues you've reported have been addressed. A community is a give-and-take. This issue is about something our developers have requested in order to aid their workflow, and while some of the reasons you've outlined may or may not be perfectly valid, in the end we've heard many voices say this is a desired feature, whereas yours is the only voice that says it is not. This issue, as with other issues you've been reopening, has been read, carefully considered and has been, respectfully, declined. Your reopening these issues is not productive unless a) new information is present b) there is more evidence that the issue needs a different resolution or c) a large enough group of people have a shared desired outcome. Reopening issues because the resolution is not to your sole satisfaction is abusive. Please discontinue that practice.
Denis, in December, you marked this issue as resolved, omitting an explanation as to how it would be. Just a couple weeks later, after this was corrected, you again marked this same issue as resolved, still without any explanation. In fact, your last message seems to acknowledge that this has not been addressed. Do you recognize that this remains unresolved, and if not, do you have any detail on the solution implemented?
(In reply to Denis Roy from comment #5) > Philippe, > > While I appreciate your willingness to help within the Eclipse community, > and very much appreciate issues that question or challenge status quo, > you've been reopening many issues that are not handled to your sole > satisfaction. Likewise, many issues you've reported have been addressed. > > A community is a give-and-take. This issue is about something our developers > have requested in order to aid their workflow, and while some of the reasons > you've outlined may or may not be perfectly valid, in the end we've heard > many voices say this is a desired feature, whereas yours is the only voice > that says it is not. > > This issue, as with other issues you've been reopening, has been read, > carefully considered and has been, respectfully, declined. > > Your reopening these issues is not productive unless a) new information is > present b) there is more evidence that the issue needs a different > resolution or c) a large enough group of people have a shared desired > outcome. > > Reopening issues because the resolution is not to your sole satisfaction is > abusive. Please discontinue that practice. Dear Denis, I know you are trying to contribute to this community, but given your recent behavior in this tracker, I doubt you are in a good situation to give much advice on its usage. In any case, this is a ticket about one issue. If you have wider grievances or suggestions about a contributor's general contribution, please communicate these using an appropriate channel.
(In reply to Philippe Cloutier from comment #7) > If you have wider grievances > or suggestions about a contributor's general contribution, please > communicate these using an appropriate channel. I will do that. Thank you.
(In reply to Denis Roy from comment #8) > (In reply to Philippe Cloutier from comment #7) > > If you have wider grievances > > or suggestions about a contributor's general contribution, please > > communicate these using an appropriate channel. > > > I will do that. Thank you. I was informed that the behaviour explained in comment 5 could be a "violation of our Communication Channel Guidelines[1]." I appreciate your not reopening bugs under those premises. [1] https://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/communication-channel-guidelines/
Greetings Denis, (In reply to Denis Roy from comment #9) > (In reply to Denis Roy from comment #8) > > (In reply to Philippe Cloutier from comment #7) > > > If you have wider grievances > > > or suggestions about a contributor's general contribution, please > > > communicate these using an appropriate channel. > > > > > > I will do that. Thank you. > > I was informed that the behaviour explained in comment 5 could be a > "violation of our Communication Channel Guidelines[1]." I appreciate your > not reopening bugs under those premises. > > [1] https://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/communication-channel-guidelines/ You are welcome to clarify what you were trying to express, but if your comment is not specific to this issue, thank you for finding a channel appropriate for that discussion. As for this ticket, please stick to the question(s) in comment #6. If you have no answer, fixing would be appreciated.
Fixing Status pending an answer to comment #6 Note that the WORKSFORME resolution is not applicable to this bug. WORKSFORME is intended for behavioral issues in Eclipse itself, for example crashes whose reproduction conditions are not well defined. Behaviors of this ITS whose occurrences are logged on this very website do not need reproduction, and the Description shows that this reproduces all too easily. If anyone is confident that this is actually fixed, please find the appropriate resolution by clicking on the "Status" link for descriptions.
