From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Fri May 24 11:30:21 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBB3E15A8346 for ; Fri, 24 May 2019 11:30:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from list1@gjunka.com) Received: from msa1.earth.yoonka.com (yoonka.com [88.98.225.149]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "msa1.earth.yoonka.com", Issuer "msa1.earth.yoonka.com" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BFAF389316 for ; Fri, 24 May 2019 11:30:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from list1@gjunka.com) Received: from crayon2.yoonka.com (crayon2.yoonka.com [10.70.7.20]) (authenticated bits=0) by msa1.earth.yoonka.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x4OBUHU7052145 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 24 May 2019 11:30:17 GMT (envelope-from list1@gjunka.com) Subject: Re: Policy on closing bugs To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org References: <2d6b1503-8ecd-6313-525b-e9f104fcb7f6@gjunka.com> <3ca47a0a-e8ae-e36f-c499-b26f8997e55c@FreeBSD.org> From: Grzegorz Junka Message-ID: <341fe47b-1104-3050-f85b-504be0460c48@gjunka.com> Date: Fri, 24 May 2019 11:30:17 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <3ca47a0a-e8ae-e36f-c499-b26f8997e55c@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-GB-large X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: BFAF389316 X-Spamd-Bar: ------ Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of list1@gjunka.com designates 88.98.225.149 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=list1@gjunka.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-6.91 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:88.98.225.149]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-ports@freebsd.org]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[gjunka.com]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[cached: gjunka.com]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.96)[-0.957,0]; IP_SCORE(-3.64)[ip: (-9.53), ipnet: 88.98.192.0/18(-4.77), asn: 56478(-3.81), country: GB(-0.09)]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:56478, ipnet:88.98.192.0/18, country:GB]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 May 2019 11:30:21 -0000 On 24/05/2019 11:12, Kubilay Kocak wrote: > On 24/05/2019 8:07 pm, Grzegorz Junka wrote: >> Hey, >> >> Is there any policy/document when a bug can be closed? For example, >> is it OK to close a bug that is fixed upstream but not yet in ports? >> >> Thanks >> GrzegorzJ >> > > Hi Grzegorz, > > Bugs are closed after they are "resolved". Resolved means a resolution > has "occurred", but more precisely, the "thing reported" has been > resolved. Resolved doesn't necessary mean "fixed" (see below) > > What resolution is appropriate/set depends on the context of the > issue, usually the specific nature of the request/proposal. Is there a > specific bug you're referring to? I can speak to that case > specifically if so. > > For example however, if the bug was a "bug report for the > port/package", fixed upstream hasn't fixed the port, so not usually, > no, that wouldn't be considered sufficient to be "resolved" and closed. > > Usually commits upstream are backported to the ports, and they are > closed when those are committed. > > There can't be policies for this perse, as its completely > context/request dependent. > > Resolutions can take place either by way of: > > 1) A change is made: a commit, usually, but could be a wiki update, or > a DNS update for infrastructure changes, etc. > 2) One of the 'non-change' resolutions: not accepted, unable to > reproduce, feedback timeout, etc > > Nothing about the above is special or different than most other issue > trackers (generally speaking). > > Regarding states, we have New, Open, In Progress, Closed > > New: Not touched/Untriaged > Open: Initially Triaged (classified) > In Progress: Has a real (person) Assignee, action has started > Closed: Change(s) Made, OR "Non-Change" resolution set. > > There's nothing special/different about these either, except that we > like to have a real person assigned before in progress, and before close. > > Happy to answer any more questions regarding issue tracking, etc anytime > Hi Kubilay, Thank you for a detailed response. Yes, this is related to a particular defect. I didn't mention it because I didn't want to be picky and seen as causing troubles :) Also wasn't sure what's OK and what's not. Here is the defect: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238086 I appreciate Yuri's contributions to the community and my intention isn't to bring this up for judgment. Even though as a FreeBSD user I might feel a bit ignored and shuffled under the carpet after the defect has been closed, my intention was more to find out if maybe a new state "Postponed" could be added for a defect in a state like this one? GrzegorzJ