Ubuntu Bugzilla to Malone (Launchpad) migration complete

[Ian Jackson]

Matthew Paul Thomas writes ("Re: Ubuntu Bugzilla to Malone (Launchpad) migration complete"):
> On 17 Jan, 2006, at 7:27 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > * All of the displays are hopelessly wasteful of real estate.
> >   Furniture and navigation should be minimal and confined to the top
> >   and bottom of of the window.  The full with of the window should be
> >   used for displaying data.  This applies to the lists (eg, search
> >   results) and to the bugs themselves.
> 
> <https://wiki.launchpad.canonical.com/MatthewPaulThomas/ 
> DesignProblems#layout>

Quite so.

I see from the wiki history that this serious and structural UI
problem, amongst others, has been DOCUMENTED as a problem since
SEPTEMBER.  Well done to you, Matthew, for writing them down.

But, this lack of change in the system in response to serious and
longstanding UI deficiencies is wholly unacceptable !

> > * Bug text should be rendered in a fixed-width font.
> 
> We could, but I don't think that would satisfy anyone saying that we  
> should, because they also mean (or, in the case of backtraces, *really*  
> mean) "line breaks should happen only where I type them". And that  
> isn't possible as long as we have the current page layout.

DDTT!

Yes, I do mean that line breaks should happen only where I type them,
too.

In practice some wrapping for display, much as Emacs wraps too-wide
text, would be good, to avoid the evil of horizontal scrolling.  The
wrap position must be >=80, which is easily achieveable with sensible
use of a normal-sized browser window.

> You can easily edit the bug URL to go to a different bug. Your context  
> might be one where the other bug isn't filed, but you can still read it  
> and click on the links etc.

Oh, so I can.  Thanks.  I'd assumed from looking at the URL that that
wouldn't work.

> <https://launchpad.net/products/launchpad/+bug/929>
> (In your example, the problem happens only in Gecko, but other examples  
> happen regardless of browser.)

I can't easily see dates on these comments (why not?), but I see that
this was first reported in JUNE.

> > * The phrases `Fix Requested In' and `Request fix' seem meaningless to
> >   me.  I'm scared to try out clicking on `Request fix' in case it does
> >   something stupid.  Presumably these could be translated into
> >   some more standard terminology ?
> > ...
> 
> There is no standard terminology for this part of what Malone does,  
> which is asking for the bug to be fixed in multiple places (e.g. in  
> packages of multiple distributions). Suggestions for more obvious  
> wording would be useful, though.

`Asking for the bug to be fixed in multiple places' is meaningless to
me.  The reason question is, who would I by asking and how would I be
asking them ?

Furthermore, when I file a bug I'm not `requesting a fix'.  I'm
`notifying the developers'.  For many bug reports I already have a
local fix or workaround; the usual purpose of reporting the bug is to
improve the software, not to allow me to get my work done.

Filing bugs is not an abstract action directed at software.  It's a
social action directed at people.  Part of the job of the tracking
system is to facilitate that communication by directing my request to
the right people but this system doesn't make it clear who I would be
communicating with and what I would be saying to them.

Ian.