New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Broken Mozilla devguide link in "Dealing with Bugs" doc section #88993
Comments
The "Bug Report Writing Guidelines" link in the "Dealing with Bugs" doc section (https://docs.python.org/3/bugs.html) looks broken. The linked URL is https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/QA/Bug_writing_guidelines, but that gives me a "Page not found" error. I tried to find equivalent content elsewhere on developer.mozilla.org, but either it's not there or my search-fu is failing me. |
A bit more Googling found this: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/contributors-guide-writing-good-bug |
For reference, it looks like Wayback Machine has a snapshot of the old article for reference: https://web.archive.org/web/20210613191914/https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/QA/Bug_writing_guidelines @mark.dickinson, do you feel like that new article is a good drop-in replacement for the old one? It is a bit different. I can open up a PR if so! |
No really, no. :-( I also now see that the new article has a (broken) link to the old article, which makes me think that maybe the removal of the old article was unintentional. We should probably find a way to report this upstream. I think I'd go for dropping the existing broken Mozilla URL and then possibly looking for other good sources. Perhaps solicit suggestions on discuss.python.org? |
I created a discourse thread for people to propose alternatives:: https://discuss.python.org/t/alternate-article-for-how-to-wite-good-bug-report/10040 It's be a good idea to merge @orsenthil's PR which just removes the broken link right away. Then, we can keep this bpo open until we have consensus on an alternative. |
@mark.dickinson, Steven D'Aprano suggested just linking to the wayback machine on discuss.python.org. What do you think of that? |
I'm pretty much a novice, Senthil, so I don't know how much a review from me is worth but removing the broken link seems best! |
I merged the 3.10 backport but leaving the bug open since only removing the 404 link isn't really fixing the problem. Linking to the Wayback Machine feels off to me. I would rather support making a similar document in our own docs, using the removed document as inspiration. If Jack wants to pick this up, I'd merge it. |
I agree that linking to the wayback machine is clunky. I just sent a I guess that at some point, if there is no consensus, it wouldn't be a |
I might be interested but I'm not sure if I will have the time. I'm not "calling dibs" if anyone else wants to go ahead with this solution. |
Problems with linking to archive.org Wayback machine.
Potential problems with external docs.
The Mozilla doc is obviously framed in terms of problems with Firefox, which is quite a different beast from Python. In my opinion, it is too long, somehow seems repetitious, and is a bit hard to read. I find it hard to imagine that many Python beginners will read the whole thing. Some of the advice, such as "Version: select the earliest Version with what the problem can be reproduced:" is wrong for our workflow. I would like our doc to recommend that real beginners, with less than a couple of months of experience, and anyone else with doubts, post first on python-list, asking "Is this a bug, and if not, please explain. Version: select the earliest Version with what the problem can be reproduced: A doc that we might link to, perhaps as a supplement to anything we write, is https://stackoverflow.com/help/minimal-reproducible-example. |
It looks like it got archived here https://github.com/mdn/archived-content/blob/main/files/en-us/mozilla/qa/bug_writing_guidelines/index.html |
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/contributors-guide-writing-good-bug |
I am pretty sure that Mozilla moved to a new content management system I might be wrong, though. I suppose we could submit a bug report to On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 10:43:16PM +0000, Terry J. Reedy wrote:
|
All right, consider the needle in the haystack officially found. This page has the same content as the missing page: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/page.cgi?id=bug-writing.html Thank you @buhtz for opening an issue with Mozilla; they are eventually going to deploy a redirect to the link above from the old link: So, we could go ahead and insert the link above which contains the same content as before. Or, we can keep the call open for a new document. What does everyone think? |
Depends on the redirect type they create. If it's temporary we should keep On Wed, 18 Aug 2021, 21:40 Jack DeVries, <report@bugs.python.org> wrote:
|
Fixing the link now, given that it is possible, and someone someday writing a new doc to replace it are different issues. This issue is about the link. |
@terry.reedy ok, a PR to restore the docs with the new link is open. |
Thanks, everyone! ✨ 🍰 ✨ |
Note: these values reflect the state of the issue at the time it was migrated and might not reflect the current state.
Show more details
GitHub fields:
bugs.python.org fields:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: