From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 4 07:59:47 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89146100; Wed, 4 Jun 2014 07:59:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from shepard.synsport.net (mail.synsport.com [208.69.230.148]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C73E2228; Wed, 4 Jun 2014 07:59:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.22] (unknown [130.255.19.191]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shepard.synsport.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B282438BD; Wed, 4 Jun 2014 02:59:24 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <538ED1CA.4020907@marino.st> Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2014 09:59:06 +0200 From: John Marino Reply-To: marino@freebsd.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Torsten Zuehlsdorff , Mark Linimon , Eitan Adler Subject: Re: [FreeBSD-Announce] FreeBSD bug tracking moves from GNATS to Bugzilla References: <92E4FB10-DDC8-4B3E-9242-4E8494491630@FreeBSD.org> <538DBAEC.5060905@gmail.com> <538E2924.3090002@gmx.de> <538E2AC9.7010309@sasktel.net> <538E32E5.5040400@marino.st> <20140604003430.GB18109@lonesome.com> <538ECEC8.2090706@toco-domains.de> In-Reply-To: <538ECEC8.2090706@toco-domains.de> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Matthias Andree , marino@freebsd.org, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, Stephen Hurd X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2014 07:59:47 -0000 On 6/4/2014 09:46, Torsten Zuehlsdorff wrote: >> >> I know for certain that people in the past have given up after submitting >> PRs that were never answered. While I know we don't have the manpower to >> deal with all of them, that should at least be our ideal. > > Yes. It is really frustrating to create a bug-report with a complete > patch just to wait for some months and seeing that nothing happens. And > even after offering help it is closed with "timeout" and the bug still > exists. That's not what a timeout is. Timeout does not mean "close the PR regardless after a certain about of time". PRs generally stay open indefinitely unless the problem has been resolved or the situation is obsolete. If what you said occurred, that was wrong. I'd have to see the actual PR to verify no misunderstanding though. I just want to nip in the bud some kind of misconcept about "timeouts" ... which means (for ports PRs) any committer can taken over the PR and the maintainer has no right to complain about that. The timeout is on the maintainer, not the PR. > And yes: trivial bugs are important. If something trivial not work, why > use it? So it should be very easy to submit a report. Non-sequitur. Besides "trivial" being an extremely loaded word that doesn't indicate the true cost of the fix, I see no relation of the severity of said bug versus the reporting process. It would logically follow that critical bugs should therefore be extremely difficult to report, which is, of course, absurd. The process should be the same regardless. John