From owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org Sat Dec 9 21:28:07 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FAE1E98DF2 for ; Sat, 9 Dec 2017 21:28:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) Received: from hz.grosbein.net (hz.grosbein.net [78.47.246.247]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "hz.grosbein.net", Issuer "hz.grosbein.net" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5952765F5; Sat, 9 Dec 2017 21:28:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) Received: from eg.sd.rdtc.ru (root@eg.sd.rdtc.ru [62.231.161.221] (may be forged)) by hz.grosbein.net (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id vB9LS0rN089762 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 9 Dec 2017 22:28:01 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) X-Envelope-From: eugen@grosbein.net X-Envelope-To: jpaetzel@FreeBSD.org Received: from [10.58.0.4] ([10.58.0.4]) by eg.sd.rdtc.ru (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id vB9LRqlH092768 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Sun, 10 Dec 2017 04:27:52 +0700 (+07) (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) Subject: Re: [Bug 122954] [lagg] IPv6 EUI64 incorrectly chosen for lagg devices To: Josh Paetzel , freebsd-net@freebsd.org References: <5A2C479B.1040400@grosbein.net> <1512853382.1168879.1199681584.2730528F@webmail.messagingengine.com> From: Eugene Grosbein Message-ID: <5A2C5553.9090109@grosbein.net> Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 04:27:47 +0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1512853382.1168879.1199681584.2730528F@webmail.messagingengine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, LOCAL_FROM, RDNS_NONE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 X-Spam-Report: * -2.3 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * 2.6 LOCAL_FROM From my domains * 1.9 RDNS_NONE Delivered to internal network by a host with no rDNS X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on hz.grosbein.net X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.25 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2017 21:28:07 -0000 10.12.2017 4:03, Josh Paetzel wrote: > On Sat, Dec 9, 2017, at 02:29 PM, Eugene Grosbein wrote: >> 10.12.2017 1:29, bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org wrote: >> >>> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=122954 >>> >>> Josh Paetzel changed: >>> >>> What |Removed |Added >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Status|In Progress |Closed >>> CC| |jpaetzel@FreeBSD.org >>> Resolution|--- |Overcome By Events >>> >> >> One should not just close PRs without any descriptive commentary no >> matter how old it is. >> The same applies to >> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118727 >> >> Please add some comments why did you closed them. >> > > The bug tracking system is in poor shape right now due to an enormous > backlog of bugs in it that will never get addressed. > > While I agree that it would be great to add comments to each bug I close > if I closed even 100 bugs a day and no one added any new bugs it will be > 4 months before I get just the kern category cleaned up. I do intend to > start adding comments once I get to FreeBSD 8 era bugs. So there's > hope. > > To be honest a bug that has had no activity in 10 years kinda speaks for > itself. Maybe we can get the bugzilla maintainers to add a "closed > because no one gave a f***" category to help people figure out what is > going on. :) > > Thanks for your feedback. Then why bother manually closing them? This looks like simple mechanical work. If we have a consensus of this, just close such pre-8 era bugs with a script at once, eh? But I personaly don't think this is right to blindly close old bug despite of period when nobody cared of it. I have a load of my own PRs (and no time to work on some of them yet) that are pretty valid still, f.e. bin/61355 (4.9-STABLE era) to start from.