December 13, 2007 | SQL Server

Connect needs an "Ignored" status

The SQL team seems to have been quite busy recently, commenting on and closing out many bugs and suggestions that have been raised, I suppose as they close out work on the SQL Server 2008 codebase.

Some (like Buck Woody and Bill Ramos, among others) have been very good about commenting that while they can't address the issue(s) for SQL Server 2008, they will be looking at the work for a future version of SQL Server.

Other issues seem to have been completely ignored.

About a week ago, I filed a suggestion entitled "SSMS : deleting constraint needs to be easier."  This is about how a unique constraint, for example, gets placed in the wrong spot in the Object Explorer hierarchy, and subsequently how a "Delete" context menu item is offered in cases where it can only be doomed to failure.

Initially, the comment from Microsoft (12/9) looked promising.  Then this morning, the issue was closed as "Resolved (Won't Fix)."  Without a comment as to why.

Personally, I don't think this issue (as well as countless others that have been similarly discarded) has been "resolved" at all.  Certainly I can understand that they're not going to invest months and months of effort into making SSMS better.  But defer the issue, or something.  Right now the resolution seems to be, "Yep, that's the way it is.  Get used to it."

10 comments on this post

    • jamiet - December 13, 2007, 4:49 PM

      Aaron,
      I completely agree. The one that annoys me most of all is when I raise a suggestion (otherwise known as a change request) and it gets closed as "Resolved (By Design)".
      I know its by design…that's why I'm requesting it be changed. AARRGGHHH!!
      -Jamie

    • Isaac - December 13, 2007, 7:07 PM

      Hi Aaron,
      I don't have anything to do with this component, so I'm not going to comment on the rationale for closing this out, but some feedback should have been left explaining things.  I've reopened the item and kicked it back to the team for comment.
      Just so that you're aware, the way these things land in our bug tracking system doesn't always make it obvious that the issue came through Connect.  When these items get closed out they sometimes get the same curt treatment as internal defects.  We're trying to do better.
      Cheers,
      -Isaac Kunen, Microsoft SQL Server

    • AaronBertrand - December 13, 2007, 7:10 PM

      Thanks for the update Isaac.

    • John Saunders - December 18, 2007, 10:18 PM

      If nothing else, MS should clarify whether "won't fix" means "won't fix in SQL Server 2008", or "won't fix ever, don't ask again".
      Why should I even bother posting on Connect if the answer is going to be "won't fix, ever". If you really mean, "to be considered for a future major release", then please say so.

    • Mark Scurrell - December 21, 2007, 9:41 PM

      Hi Aaron
      I understand your frustration and, as Issac also states, we are trying to do better.
      I do think some of your frustration may be due to the order of events that takes place when a Connect issue is resolved.  When a Connect issue is resolved our internal system is updated to remind the owner for that issue to submit further feedback, so you will know why it was resolved.  There may be some delay in-between the resolution of the issue and the feedback being submitted though, perhaps 1-2 weeks.  So if you see an issue resolved please try to allow 1-2 weeks for the feedback to appear.
      You should also know that how well teams are doing in providing Connect feedback is measured and monitored.  From the results I have seen we are improving.  It is measured closely how well we are doing in making the initial response and how well we do in supplying feedback when an issue is resolved.
      Also, if you feel your issue has been closed incorrectly then I believe you have the option to re-open it and it will re-appear in our internal database and will be looked at again.
      So I would encourage everyone to use Connect to tell us about bugs or to make feature requests.  The process we have can and will be improved, but be assurred that every Connect issue raised does get reviewed by the appropriate team and we do find them extremely useful.
      Hope that helps.
      Thanks,
      Mark Scurrell
      (SQL Server Replication Program Manager)

    • AaronBertrand - December 22, 2007, 12:23 AM

      Thanks Mark, I appreciate the information you've added.  As I explained to you offline, I'm not frustrated so much, but rather disappointed.  Hopefully this loop between Connect and the internal tool is closed sooner than later.  If a dev is closing an issue, they probably have a good inkling as to why they are closing it, right then and there, not 1-2 weeks later.  Perhaps their internal closure should only reflect the internal tool until there is a good explanation visible on Connect, and only then closed on Connect.  Unfortunately, most of the issues that have been closed on me are never updated with a reason, and sometimes that leaves me wondering whether I did a good enough job with the report in the first place.  🙁

    • AaronBertrand - December 22, 2007, 12:32 AM

      John, I totally agree.  In that case there is usually an explanation of some kind (), but not always.  And it is often ambiguous as to whether the issue should be dropped completely, or wait until after Katmai.  The latter should be automatic, I think… just apply some kind of "next version" label on the issue, and mark it as deferred, instead of making us inventory all of our own suggestions and re-submit them at some future date.
      I brought up a similar point earlier in the cycle, where comments were left like, "we'll look at this in a future release / upcoming build / next version"… does this mean Katmai? Katmai+1? Katmai+10?

    • Ed Lehman - December 22, 2007, 3:55 AM

      As you suspect and as Mark mentioned, the SQL team has indeed been very busy responding to Connect issues. We have made huge progress on the backlog of items with no feedback, and are also working on the quality of feedback, including consistency in how items deferred to future releases are handled.
      For bugs or suggestions deferred to future releases, the item should not be resolved or closed, but should be left as Active and moved to the next release area of our internal workitem database. We're working on improvements to our workflow to help ensure that our teams follow this practice. If items you file are incorrectly closed even though the comments suggest that we'll look at it in a future release, you should feel free to reopen the item and point out that it should not be closed.
      As far as what release "future release" means, if something is expected to be addressed in Katmai, you should see mention of a future CTP. "Future Release" typically refers to a release beyond Katmai RTM. No one can tell you at this point whether that means a Katmai Service Pack, Katmai + 1, or Katmai + n. What specific workitems go into the next release will not be assessed until work on Katmai is complete.

    • AaronBertrand - December 27, 2007, 3:17 AM

      Thanks Ed.  FWIW, I just had three Connect items closed today where all three had comments suggesting that they would be looked at after Katmai.  I think a "deferred" state would be a lot more motivational for us than simply closing them.  I am curious how a closed item might get back on the radar 6-8 months from now…

    • AaronBertrand - December 27, 2007, 5:49 PM

      Also, I'm not clear on all the "bookkeeping terminology" … a bug I filed was recently closed, and the comment ended with: "…I need to close this issue and track it with a defect report."
      What is the difference between a bug report and a defect report?  Why shouldn't the connect item stay open until the defect is fixed?

Comments are closed.