<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Some stuff &#187; Software bug</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.yhuang.org/?feed=rss2&#038;tag=software-bug" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://blog.yhuang.org</link>
	<description>here.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Aug 2025 08:50:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Google marks bugs it doesn&#8217;t want to deal with as &#8216;obsolete&#8217;</title>
		<link>https://blog.yhuang.org/?p=1711</link>
		<comments>https://blog.yhuang.org/?p=1711#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Mar 2016 21:05:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Android]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Epistemology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Existence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Transfer Protocol]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reddit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Software bug]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unreproducible]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scripts.mit.edu/~zong/wpress/?p=1711</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Apparently Google has a habit of marking bugs it doesn&#8217;t want to deal with as obsolete. According to Google&#8217;s own Life of a Bug explainer, a bug categorized as &#8220;Obsolete&#8221; means, Obsolete: Similar to Unreproducible, but with a reasonable certainty that the bug did exist in the reported version but was already fixed in a [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Apparently Google has a habit of marking bugs it doesn&#8217;t want to deal with as obsolete. According to Google&#8217;s own <a href="https://source.android.com/source/life-of-a-bug.html">Life of a Bug</a> explainer, a bug categorized as &#8220;Obsolete&#8221; means,</p>
<blockquote><p>Obsolete: Similar to Unreproducible, but with a reasonable certainty that the bug did exist in the reported version but was already fixed in a later release.</p></blockquote>
<p>&#8230;which is a lie. I give two pieces of solid evidence for why this is a lie.<br />
<span id="more-1711"></span><br />
<strong>Exhibit A.</strong> <a href="https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=38282">An egregious bug with the Media Transfer Protocol (MTP) on Android</a> that has been <a href="http://android.stackexchange.com/questions/46315/not-all-files-are-visible-over-mtp">reproducible by hundreds, if not thousands of users</a>, on practically all Android phones, and has been reported since late 2012, and which still exists to this day in the latest Android Marshmallow, has been marked as &#8220;Obsolete&#8221; in 2014. Now you tell me if this bug is either &#8220;unreproducible&#8221; or &#8220;with a reasonable certainty &#8230; fixed in a later release&#8221;? Persistent users have filed a <a href="https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=195362">new bug report</a> that is now &#8220;Assigned.&#8221; Let&#8217;s see what <em>life outcome</em> this <em>incarnation</em> of a bug has.</p>
<p><strong>Exhibit B.</strong> <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/androiddev/comments/2on1fe/google_closed_11889_android_bugs_last_48_hours/">According to Reddit</a>, Google closed 11889 bugs (actually 11879) within a couple of days with the status &#8220;Obsolete&#8221; in December 2014, the above-mentioned bug among them. In comparison, the total number of bugs closed in the same period was only 11988, so this was a massive purge. Now, it is not humanly possible to evaluate nearly twelve thousand bugs in two days to determine whether &#8220;with a reasonable certainty &#8230; the bug did exist &#8230; but was already fixed.&#8221; The logical conclusion is therefore <em>nobody bothered to look at these bugs</em> and <em>nobody bothered to triage</em> when they reached potential end-of-life. Sounds like a broken bug handling system to me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://blog.yhuang.org/?feed=rss2&#038;p=1711</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
