From owner-freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Fri Dec 1 11:05:56 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@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 D8E47DFBF97 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2017 11:05:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mremski@comcast.net) Received: from resqmta-po-02v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-po-02v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe16:19:96:114:154:161]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "resqmta-po-01v.sys.comcast.net", Issuer "COMODO RSA Organization Validation Secure Server CA" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB1947B7F0 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2017 11:05:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mremski@comcast.net) Received: from resomta-po-13v.sys.comcast.net ([96.114.154.237]) by resqmta-po-02v.sys.comcast.net with ESMTP id Kj8jeZKlZ0qygKj8leqqlc; Fri, 01 Dec 2017 11:05:55 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20161114; t=1512126355; bh=5KbvQTHHBSw5ZxO73A9N5j6hTwACXr1ik0zFpoO5LJI=; h=Received:Received:Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version: Content-Type; b=jgcibXqwdXGJCfYAgZK/nOmNLvU8R6t2xcNjOhCdk9H+S5H35F8up7PN5HdtQNSeG lfP6hO1iwaGRHBPKHLxESN83DWdj3HSk70+AtaE3hLMdXS4aIgu07lRea8vdzlxM7d E9zRHaFivFfCTXe6+NkxAbRTS03Oo7XHUzuHLnJAJ7Wd6lsFoKUAWrt1oVKG8zizmA lrHUjFwmMImrMXMNKML0IRsyd/qAr5GwwDHJtVh/fODpODWNrGo2+Hi6Aq9bBwPvZB 2eD6OTiNP/oT6d5vmuZkPTdyuCggZuiOSIGGADwK4+GkjajgSp4DfCdnN72sFfuyth 951qXRRPpMSIg== Received: from trueos-8226.remski.net ([75.68.96.21]) by resomta-po-13v.sys.comcast.net with SMTP id Kj8keKcU9q4RuKj8ke8FCc; Fri, 01 Dec 2017 11:05:55 +0000 Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2017 06:05:53 -0500 From: Mike Remski To: "Kristof Provost" Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Dieter BSD , freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Getting PRs fixed [ was: Re: The future of fortune(6) ] Message-ID: <20171201060553.77d2c34b@trueos-8226.remski.net> In-Reply-To: References: <1306478885.37537.1512123855297@connect.xfinity.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.15.0 (GTK+ 2.24.31; amd64-portbld-freebsd12.0) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfL+xD4szDUF+UGxUZ4K0Z7t3QwEmVbA2qzWW1Kvv6tgbupGAh1s2DKYyeEkpfkAUVShMHmq3sqgJc+cSyAWF3URBlsPhcRmsUBk/gbBDrrR/wgjsSCf2 sfbqA+wrj+dUF19To/3IcTJ0lwaQGrzzNKVrkRvwurTokrTsRauuJlGqzKeVhQ1CGNPwi5LlJq80aHA04w577GhcHNZnZiOVpxU7vYPrjL8+nCQA/myl01ck 8He6F+rs2l+fV25vAjWGiUhKddMIB41eShkiNcVkPoE= X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.25 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2017 11:05:56 -0000 On Fri, 01 Dec 2017 11:44:31 +0100 "Kristof Provost" wrote: > On 1 Dec 2017, at 11:24, Mike Remski wrote: > > Bug databases need to be scrubbbed periodically. Even if it's just > > to close ones that can't be reproduced or have been fixed by other > > changes (after due diligence in verifying it so there is no absurd > > excuse). > > > > There are a lot of foks with the ability and desire to help, fixing > > PRs and sending in patches should be a good way to involved, but > > that still depends on the owner of a piece to look at a patch, ask > > questions, get revisions and commit it. If that never happens or > > the submitter never gets any feedback, it winds up discouraging the > > new people. > > > > Fixing bugs, espeically on !CURRENT, is not glamorous, but > > necessary. Often actually root causing the bug and patching it > > gives one a better understanding of the overall system and a sense > > of satisfaction. > > > > Yes, I realize that everyone is a volunteer and has a real life, > > but at least acknowledging a submission should be done, even if it > > is automated. This goes both ways: originator of a bug (or patch) > > needs to be responsive to the FreeBSD committer if they request > > more data or clarification. > > > Good bug reports are enormously valuable. A bug report with a clear > reproduction scenario is vastly more likely to get fixed (quickly). > My own experience is that usually I spend more time on trying to > reproduce the problem than actually fixing it. Sometimes by orders of > magnitude. > > Patches are fantastic, but a bug report with a simple reproduction > scenario is often just as good (and sometimes even better). > > Regards, > Kristof > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" Apologies for the long text lines in my original, stupid webmail client didn't wrap them. I agree that bugs with steps to reproduce are invaluable. I don't mind getting bug reports at work when QA includes that information without me needing to ask a million questions. Core files are often priceless because you can get a better picture of what happened. Maybe the problem needs to be approached from both sides? Clear documentation on what makes a useful bug report so submitters give developers better info up front and maybe a little bit of prodding to get bugs looked at? mike