Hello, in the past time, searching for bugs via normal means rarely turned up anything useful. Luckily, when one used the search on the “New [Bug]” page, which apparently was broader, it was often easy to find a related bug, and hence avoid duplicates. (About 75% of the new bug entries could be avoided in my case over the last couple of years.) But right now, whatever you enter in the search on the “New [Bug]” page, you get the “Zarro Boogs” message. Reproducible: Sometimes Steps to Reproduce: 1. Go to http://bugs.gentoo.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Gentoo%20Linux&format=guided 2. Search for “vim”. (Some work, some don’t. More often than not it doesn’t) 3a. Notice the very unlikely result of zero bugs. 3b. If you find results, now go to: http://bugs.gentoo.org/ 4. Enter the same query as in (2) in the search field of your choice. 5. Notice the differences in results. Actual Results: As described above. Expected Results: The main search function on the starting page should be as broad and powerful as possible, as to avoid duplicates. In no case should it reveal worse results as the search on he “New” page. I noticed the change just now. The previous situation is here since before I can remember. Explanation for “Severity: Major”: This will cause a flood of unnecessary dupes for maintainers and unsolved problems for users. Harming all other activities. I thing the search function is the heart of bugs.gentoo.org, and without it, things look pretty bad.
On the "new bug" page, it clearly shows you what you are looking at. Either "All-time Top 100 (loaded initially)" OR "Hot in the last two weeks" - there are no "vim" bugs in either list. Search for 'coreutils' in the "Hot in the last two weeks" list to see something useful. For example.
(In reply to comment #1) > On the "new bug" page, it clearly shows you what you are looking at. Either > "All-time Top 100 (loaded initially)" OR "Hot in the last two weeks" - there > are no "vim" bugs in either list. At least read my report properly, before replying. Especially step 2 in the steps to reproduce. In combination with the “If your bug isn't there, search Bugzilla by entering a few key words having to do with your bug in this box. For example: pop3 mail or copy paste. The results will appear above.” right above the search input field on that page, it should make things clear. Thanks. P.S.: No, it was never a search in the top 100, when you did what is described in step 2. I know, because I use it regularly since at least 2004.
Well, I can't understand what you are trying to complain about...Sorry. The "New Bug" page does not search all open bugs like the main page search box does. The main page search box does not search non-open bugs unless you prefix ALL to the search, as stated below the search box.
(In reply to comment #3) > The "New Bug" page does not search all open bugs like the main page search box > does. The main page search box does not search non-open bugs unless you prefix > ALL to the search, as stated below the search box. Aah, ok, that clarifies it. Then I recommend making ALL the default. From experience I know, that usually I can’t find a related bug without that ALL. So I highly doubt that the non-ALL use-case is the more often needed one. :) One could still search for non-closed ones by allowing the keyword NEW to be added in those cases. Alternatively, a preference in the user settings (defaulting to ALL) would be a good idea. See, the purpose I’m following here, is to reduce duplicates. And I’d bet money that that little change could fend off 75% of all dupes. :) Or at least save the walk to the “New” page. :)
I don't see how defaulting to ALL improves things, especially when dealing with packages that have had thousands of bugs filed against them.
(In reply to Alex Legler from comment #5) > I don't see how defaulting to ALL improves things, especially when dealing > with packages that have had thousands of bugs filed against them. It would have helped to actually read my comment, and read all of it, since it already included the reason why: > From experience I know, that usually I can’t find a related bug without that ALL. So I highly doubt that the non-ALL use-case is the more often needed one. :) Which is because unfortunately *usually*, as soon as they are noticed, bugs are turbo-closed on vague excuses, out of lack of comprehension, or by deliberately misunderstanding/ignoring comments for the purpose of making up those former reasons. It’s similar to the obsessive deletion of everything that they didn’t write by the Wikipedia admin cabal. It’s not mentally sane behavior… at least for grown-ups… and it’s self-harming… yet it happens more often than not. Something’s very wrong there. I realize that there’s no point in telling that to the people who just did exactly that, and know it, but at least you will know the user base is well-aware of that (even if you say you are not), and what we think about it. WONTFIX indeed. FUBAR is more like it though.
(In reply to Navid Zamani from comment #6) > It’s similar to the obsessive deletion of everything that they didn’t write > by the Wikipedia admin cabal. > It’s not mentally sane behavior… at least for grown-ups… and it’s > self-harming… yet it happens more often than not. Something’s very wrong > there. Unless you are a doctor, please refrain from asserting other peoples' mental state.
(In reply to Alex Legler from comment #7) > Unless you are a doctor, please refrain from asserting other peoples' mental > state. Actually, I am. (Well, a plain doctor isn’t qualified to do that.) I’m a neuro-psychologist. I develop methods and systems that can simulate and cure mental illnesses. I know exactly what I am talking about and why I said it. It is not mentally sane exactly because it is self-harming. Even more so because those doing it have a dissociation between (their actions in) reality and their perceived reality. I’m aware that those affected by definition cannot accept that without a “way out”, but frankly, we humans have a really hard time giving a damn about providing that, if that harm affects us. Anyway, this discussion is futile. It’s not like you can control it…
(In reply to Navid Zamani from comment #8) > Anyway, this discussion is futile. It’s not like you can control it… I can however control the 'locked' flag of your account if you cannot accept the fact that people maintaining a service do not agree with your suggestion.
(In reply to Alex Legler from comment #9) > I can however control the 'locked' flag of your account Ahhh… Little man goes big, right? Stanford prison experiment all over again… > if you cannot accept > the fact that people maintaining a service do not agree with your suggestion. Way to abuse your power for oppression because you can’t handle a fact, and backwards-rationalizing it by projecting your own inability to accept onto me. In reality though, I meant your control over your behavior and the mindset it stems from. And you went right ahead and did prove me right. As you can now hopefully see, there’s really no point in discussing this further. So I, again, end it here. I just recommend not ever coming to central Europe, as you will quickly notice how unwelcome that behavior is here.
