From owner-freebsd-bugbusters Tue Feb 11 19: 9: 5 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-bugbusters@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F22B37B401 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 19:09:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from bluejay.mail.pas.earthlink.net (bluejay.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.218]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7228A43FCB for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 19:09:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0140.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.192.140] helo=mindspring.com) by bluejay.mail.pas.earthlink.net with asmtp (SSLv3:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18inGe-00028r-00 for bugbusters@freebsd.org; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 19:09:01 -0800 Message-ID: <3E49BA78.9B24BB22@mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 19:07:36 -0800 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bugbusters@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Bugzilla? (was Re: Okay, I think I need some serious introduction ;-) References: <20030209185618.GA19962@papagena.rockefeller.edu> <20030209151407.N548@localhost> <2e1y2e7jtu.y2e@localhost.localdomain> <20030211190614.GA2153@gothmog.gr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: b1a02af9316fbb217a47c185c03b154d40683398e744b8a403cdb762c5e6a980fcae4efc451b0a98350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c Sender: owner-freebsd-bugbusters@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > Interesting stuff. I've been toying around with the idea of an > automated ``close and send a gentle reply to the originator'' script > for feedback PRs that are more than 3-4 months old and no activity has > appeared in the audit trail since the last transition to feedback. > If 3-4 months seems too short, we can change it to 1 year or more. > > The reasoning behind an automated close of the PR is that if the > originator of the PR has falled off the face of the earth, lost net > connectivity and nobody else picked up the problem report, then it's > probably something nobody cares about so we shouldn't waste time on it. I understand the reasoning, but it's not reasonable. 8-). Consider if the problem were something like succeptability to smurf attacks, but none of the committers cared about it enough to do anything about it, or close the PR. Eventually, under these rules, the problem "times out", but the root cause is never addressed. Even if the original reported is hit by a bus the day after the report is submitted the first time, that doesn't make the problem "go away", merely by wishing it away. What is the intent of timing out bug reports? What is the perceived need? If it's just to apply a filter so you can not see them, you can do that by constraining the search filter to ignore PR's older than some date, without having to remove them from the database. > Then all it would take for PRs to slowly rot and close would be that > committers set the already open PRs to the feedback state if they seem > to be too old to be relevant to current and supported releases. Does > this look any good as an idea? Why do you want reports to "slowly rot"? Should we do the same thing with source code that does not get touched in a while? This whole discussion sems aimed at being able to discard PR's that are inconvenient, through their persistance, or through the inability of people to resolve them, or the inability of the project to grant commit access to those people willing to resolve them, when members of the project who already have commit access are unwilling to do so. Old PR's are, to my mind, the most valuable of all PR's, in terms of attracting talent to the project: persistant breakage is often the most annoying. This seems to me an attempt to mitigate that annoyance by ignoring it, rather than attracting new volunteers to the project. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugbusters" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-bugbusters Tue Feb 11 19:33:50 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-bugbusters@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C6D937B401; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 19:33:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from stork.mail.pas.earthlink.net (stork.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.188]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EDF543FAF; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 19:33:48 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0140.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.192.140] helo=mindspring.com) by stork.mail.pas.earthlink.net with asmtp (SSLv3:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18ineb-0001vD-00; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 19:33:46 -0800 Message-ID: <3E49C045.E519DD90@mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 19:32:21 -0800 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Marc G. Fournier" , bugbusters@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Bugzilla? (was Re: Okay, I think I need some serious introduction;-) References: <20030209185618.GA19962@papagena.rockefeller.edu> <20030209151407.N548@localhost> <2e1y2e7jtu.y2e@localhost.localdomain> <3E498592.5E5BF4EE@mindspring.com> <20030211211426.A43952@hub.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: b1a02af9316fbb217a47c185c03b154d40683398e744b8a468ce00c315b1942f2fb7283e6f2c0196350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c Sender: owner-freebsd-bugbusters@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG [ ... redirected to 'bugbusters' ... ] "Marc G. Fournier" wrote: > On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Terry Lambert wrote: > > The problem with this approach is that it's possible to ignore > > a PR to make it go away, without the underlying problem being > > repaired/acknowledged. > > And that is different then now, leaving it open? The information is not destroyed that the bug was never in fact actually resolved. If you want to have a "I can't fit it" or "I won't fix it" status for the bug, fine, but do not claim it is resolved when it can not be proven, via a regression test, that it is, in fact, resolved. > How many PRs right now contain patches that ppl have 'ignored' All open ones with patches attached, of course. > and, as a result, are no longer even relevant to the code? You probably really mean "the code is no longer relevent to the patch", since the patch has not changed in the interim; from the patch's point of view, that translates to one of: o that the code was changed by someone who did not properly maintain the patch o that the code was changed by someone who did not properly check for a patch o that the current process failed to "lock" the section of code that the patch applied to, because the current process has a bug -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugbusters" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-bugbusters Wed Feb 12 6:36:52 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-bugbusters@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3468137B401 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 06:36:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailsrv.otenet.gr (mailsrv.otenet.gr [195.170.0.5]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 618C643FAF for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 06:36:47 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Received: from gothmog.gr (patr530-a071.otenet.gr [212.205.215.71]) by mailsrv.otenet.gr (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h1CEaV4A000695; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 16:36:40 +0200 (EET) Received: from gothmog.gr (gothmog [127.0.0.1]) by gothmog.gr (8.12.7/8.12.7) with ESMTP id h1CEaSNQ001911; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 16:36:28 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Received: (from giorgos@localhost) by gothmog.gr (8.12.7/8.12.7/Submit) id h1CEaHdi001910; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 16:36:17 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 16:36:17 +0200 From: Giorgos Keramidas To: Terry Lambert Cc: bugbusters@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Bugzilla? (was Re: Okay, I think I need some serious introduction ;-) Message-ID: <20030212143617.GA1639@gothmog.gr> References: <20030209185618.GA19962@papagena.rockefeller.edu> <20030209151407.N548@localhost> <2e1y2e7jtu.y2e@localhost.localdomain> <20030211190614.GA2153@gothmog.gr> <3E49BA78.9B24BB22@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E49BA78.9B24BB22@mindspring.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-bugbusters@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On 2003-02-11 19:07, Terry Lambert wrote: > Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > > Interesting stuff. I've been toying around with the idea of an > > automated ``close and send a gentle reply to the originator'' script > > for feedback PRs that are more than 3-4 months old and no activity has > > appeared in the audit trail since the last transition to feedback. > > If 3-4 months seems too short, we can change it to 1 year or more. > > What is the intent of timing out bug reports? What is the perceived > need? If it's just to apply a filter so you can not see them, you > can do that by constraining the search filter to ignore PR's older > than some date, without having to remove them from the database. I don't want PRs to automatically close after a while. Having old PRs around is good too. The whole idea of PRs becoming 'suspended' and then closed reminded me of what is now done with feedback timeouts. That's all :) > Old PR's are, to my mind, the most valuable of all PR's, in terms > of attracting talent to the project: persistant breakage is often > the most annoying. Good point. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugbusters" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-bugbusters Wed Feb 12 8:38:24 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-bugbusters@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1C2F37B401 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 08:38:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.soaustin.net (mail.soaustin.net [207.200.4.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0CC843FB1 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 08:38:22 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: from lonesome.lonesome.com (cs2876-77.austin.rr.com [24.28.76.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.soaustin.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C717F1431D for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 10:38:21 -0600 (CST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: Mark Linimon Organization: Lonesome Dove Computing Services To: bugbusters@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Bugzilla? (was Re: Okay, I think I need some serious introduction ;-) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 10:40:37 -0600 User-Agent: KMail/1.4.3 References: <20030209185618.GA19962@papagena.rockefeller.edu> <3E49BA78.9B24BB22@mindspring.com> <20030212143617.GA1639@gothmog.gr> In-Reply-To: <20030212143617.GA1639@gothmog.gr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <200302121040.37030.linimon@lonesome.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-bugbusters@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > I've been toying around with the idea of an automated ``close and > send a gentle reply to the originator'' script for feedback PRs that > are more than 3-4 months old and no activity has appeared I could support the "gentle reply" concept but not the close concept. But to play Daemon's Advocate: We should note the fact that there was at least one porter who objected to Dan Langille's proposal to add all maintainers to one of his own (or proposed) reminder lists. Whether or not you or I personally agree with that position isn't as relevant as the fact that at least one (maybe more) people feel that they don't want to have additional obligations added on to their workload, after-the-fact. But we do need some way for PRs to become "unstuck". I'm fiddling with some tools to help identify them, but these only construct HTML pages at present, and only for the ports system. I'll leave the question of "should we automatically send email" up to people who have been with the project much longer. mcl To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugbusters" in the body of the message