Bug databases track issues at several levels.
There’s the level of the specific problem. For example: this sequences of graphics calls causes a crash.
Then there’s the level of the meta-bug: a bug tracking a number of different issues in some genre. For example, there might be a bug tracking, say, crashes involving some particular feature: graphics drawing functionality, for example. In Bugzilla this is known as a “meta-bug”, because it isn’t really a bug but rather a bug about bugs. In b.m.o such bugs are given the meta keyword.
Last, there’s the level consisting of bugs which track meta-bugs. For example, you might have a bug tracking a bug for crashes involving graphics drawing functionality, a bug for rendering glitches involving graphics drawing functionality, a bug for unimplemented functionality in the specification, a bug for performance problems involving graphics drawing functionality, and a bug tracking progress at investigating the relative stability of graphics functionality run on hardware with various graphics cards and driver versions. The logical progression is to call this a “meta-meta-bug”.
Therefore, shouldn’t Bugzilla have a meta-meta keyword to associate with such bugs? But let’s not be over-hasty: let’s have a fair discussion first. Perhaps people should comment or blog about this idea a bit. What do readers think?
Curiously I just happened to stumble across a couple posts from others concerning blogging about bugs. What a coincidence!
Comment by Jeff — 09.03.11 @ 00:47
I would call them spheres rather than meta-meta myself. What are the tradeoffs to adding any new keywords?
Comment by Havvy — 09.03.11 @ 01:29
I am, of course, in favor of this new keyword… You know I’ve never meta keyword I didn’t like.
Comment by Justin Dolske — 09.03.11 @ 01:55
Can you give an example (like, an actual bug in the Mozilla bugzilla) of a meta-meta-bug?
Comment by njn — 09.03.11 @ 02:36
Can you also give an example of a meta-blug or meta-meta-blug?
Comment by njn — 09.03.11 @ 02:46
I’d file a bug to make it easier for us to track the keyword addition but I fear it would be a meta-meta-meta bug…
Comment by Neil Rashbrook — 09.03.11 @ 02:54
Well you could just use the Tracking component in the Core product, then it wouldn’t matter how you wanted to tag it, not that I see why it really matters if its a meta-meta or not.
Comment by Standard8 — 09.03.11 @ 02:56
Sounds like keyword metastasization to me…
Comment by njn — 09.03.11 @ 03:04
Ugh, no. Meta bugs about meta bugs are still, themselves, meta bugs, so “meta” is still accurate. Also, if you want “meta-meta”, then by the same arguments you need “meta-meta-meta” for the even-fewer third-level bugs, which is clearly silly.
There are few enough of these multi-level meta bugs that I don’t see why a separate keyword is valuable.
Comment by Peter Kasting — 09.03.11 @ 23:19
Followup: Reading more Plat Mozilla posts I am becoming suspicious that this is a snarky reaction to bz’ “blug” post.
Comment by Peter Kasting — 09.03.11 @ 23:21
Not so much “snarky reaction” as “taking it to the next level of awesome”, I think, with a meta-blug. You must also have missed my “who, me?” first comment here.
bz’s idea seems quite reasonable, actually. That’s no reason not to have fun with it at the same time.
Comment by Jeff — 09.03.11 @ 23:24
[…] Considering a new keyword for Bugzilla (whereswalden.com) […]
Pingback by Business Analysis Technique #20 – Problem Tracking « TAPUniversity — 21.04.11 @ 06:41