From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Feb 11 16:54:55 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1F7B37B401 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 16:54:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailsrv.otenet.gr (mailsrv.otenet.gr [195.170.0.5]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D47BA43F75 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 16:54:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from keramida@freebsd.org) Received: from gothmog.gr (patr530-a220.otenet.gr [212.205.215.220]) by mailsrv.otenet.gr (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h1C0sg4A025058; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 02:54:44 +0200 (EET) Received: from gothmog.gr (gothmog [127.0.0.1]) by gothmog.gr (8.12.7/8.12.7) with ESMTP id h1C0semK001187; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 02:54:40 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from keramida@freebsd.org) Received: (from giorgos@localhost) by gothmog.gr (8.12.7/8.12.7/Submit) id h1BJ6EqC002439; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 21:06:14 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from keramida@freebsd.org) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 21:06:14 +0200 From: Giorgos Keramidas To: "Gary W. Swearingen" Cc: The Hermit Hacker , Rahul Siddharthan , Colin Percival , Mark Murray , chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Bugzilla? (was Re: Okay, I think I need some serious introduction ;-) Message-ID: <20030211190614.GA2153@gothmog.gr> Reply-To: bugbusters@freebsd.org Mail-Followup-To: bugbusters@freebsd.org References: <20030209185618.GA19962@papagena.rockefeller.edu> <20030209151407.N548@localhost> <2e1y2e7jtu.y2e@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2e1y2e7jtu.y2e@localhost.localdomain> Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@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, the PR handling team. ## Please honor the Mail-Followup-To and Reply-To headers. On 2003-02-11 10:28, "Gary W. Swearingen" wrote: > How about putting "policies" in the PR Guidelines something like this: > > PRs older than 2 years shall be marked "suspended", where "older" is > measured from the last PR log activity which a committer deems to > indicate that the PR might still be valid for any OS version. > > (This allows PRs to be "refreshed".) > > PRs older than 4 years shall be marked "closed" if 10 minutes of > research by a committer does not convince him that any of the PR's > problems is, more likely than not, a problem in a recent release, > where "older" is measured from the creation date of the PR. 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. 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? - Giorgos To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message