From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Fri May 24 12:34:24 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 0833415AA516 for ; Fri, 24 May 2019 12:34:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from koobs.freebsd@gmail.com) Received: from mail-pg1-x531.google.com (mail-pg1-x531.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::531]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1O1" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D9548BCDB for ; Fri, 24 May 2019 12:34:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from koobs.freebsd@gmail.com) Received: by mail-pg1-x531.google.com with SMTP id f25so4999658pgv.10 for ; Fri, 24 May 2019 05:34:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:reply-to:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=bjmE2HtEio/rg93YRLfV2CDdJFZc9XXCqRPtOoFRHQg=; b=NBbPlt7hxZAS+423fFmavuMfVd8Ob997DY4YcP34qutRWMn2lfi+xtQE6Cwow9ARJi nRJaZUdOhJTz2/Jf8lOrXnoyVSN2prtAvSdL1vs+BXT7W0r+TIDq2QN0TFFQ/gA/fFtH 9IHrM/r5fIS5TcuWmWNu/KwU5zZDPtTifONd/QNkKlFRj1XNK2386f0Bs0p2zTYznz8i F0YPb89hFtRkOEN5kxOJnJFEA0LoT9NtGagkLaGiFNo0y2b6VQOY60Sk7tvf+yZ3xm8r LkWUABJfiUmfkTXzt6xA41KafSl/ykyg0ZZXRqDijZ2qQmPh+0UcCKeMDWZheMZpcQTq //1w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:reply-to:subject:to:references:from :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=bjmE2HtEio/rg93YRLfV2CDdJFZc9XXCqRPtOoFRHQg=; b=mey+wAlsyeW4eLM4uUiB9BySGmcmYAqU12deG6bo/h21czidX51NQoWR55Pb6+ybBQ IeT3g3RJLMLs8hZ0KS3b4e5lVQetAWrvqHOgt4y+hpz1RGz44jrTQ8YOREzn2k/HKj5C 22xkYBWkjVp1nr1dbUWNLq2BYjxKMp5q/N0YF9EEQT1FzrAXInD8eZZ6V6YapfCNj5OZ pMMlAVF+kXzC/sV6ERk8bglEcwY0WcfgNgd5jmBwMbKtS4LqddOOYBHh2ZdguEizv7PC 5vHHchCCH7RBsddghQ3JN0cmewQ7vuMlpOI1+WtRuIBVINn9hVTW0wUPpGoQgzlbTwOf c8XA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXsQT9R9nd1mMmuIa3KFkJcYjym2Z4HTNa7yCTSVlHn8OJgUYbV vTeIfm1xzcHw81sLo6GiW8F7E/pt X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxt30ZTst3TA/h+HI4+jneNaMx+OIAGbH+ACNcTfP6zVG84PH8onnvkK+g/DwNX97jNuYfYmA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:bb83:: with SMTP id v3mr9051491pjr.73.1558701260579; Fri, 24 May 2019 05:34:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.105] (121-200-20-216.79c814.syd.nbn.aussiebb.net. [121.200.20.216]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l35sm2445187pje.10.2019.05.24.05.34.18 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=AEAD-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 24 May 2019 05:34:19 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Kubilay Kocak Reply-To: koobs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Policy on closing bugs To: Grzegorz Junka , freebsd-ports@freebsd.org References: <2d6b1503-8ecd-6313-525b-e9f104fcb7f6@gjunka.com> <3ca47a0a-e8ae-e36f-c499-b26f8997e55c@FreeBSD.org> <341fe47b-1104-3050-f85b-504be0460c48@gjunka.com> From: Kubilay Kocak Message-ID: <3f2d8d56-c223-596e-caaf-d17d6a0decd5@FreeBSD.org> Date: Fri, 24 May 2019 22:34:15 +1000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:67.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/67.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 7D9548BCDB X-Spamd-Bar: ------ Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=NBbPlt7h; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of koobsfreebsd@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4864:20::531 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=koobsfreebsd@gmail.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-6.19 / 15.00]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; HAS_REPLYTO(0.00)[koobs@FreeBSD.org]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip6:2607:f8b0:4000::/36]; REPLYTO_ADDR_EQ_FROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[gmail.com:+]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[cached: alt3.gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com]; FORGED_SENDER(0.30)[koobs@FreeBSD.org,koobsfreebsd@gmail.com]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; FREEMAIL_ENVFROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[koobs@FreeBSD.org,koobsfreebsd@gmail.com]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:15169, ipnet:2607:f8b0::/32, country:US]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[gmail.com:s=20161025]; TAGGED_FROM(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.99)[-0.993,0]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-ports@freebsd.org]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[FreeBSD.org]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[1.3.5.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.2.0.0.4.6.8.4.0.b.8.f.7.0.6.2.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.5.0]; IP_SCORE(-2.98)[ip: (-9.27), ipnet: 2607:f8b0::/32(-3.29), asn: 15169(-2.29), country: US(-0.06)] 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 12:34:24 -0000 On 24/05/2019 9:52 pm, Grzegorz Junka wrote: > > On 24/05/2019 11:30, Grzegorz Junka wrote: >> >> 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? >> > > A very similar story with: > > https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238088 > > It's not scheduled to be removed per se yet. The removal is under > discussion with no clear path agreed as far as I know. I understand that > a maintainer doesn't want to spend time working on a port that will > likely undergo significant changes or removal but is closing the defect > the right thing to do? And again, a "Postponed" state seems to me to be > more appropriate? > > GrzegorzJ > > The better resolution for this is again probably: Not Accepted (as WONTFIX), though I can understand why "Overcome by Events" was selected (wont be fixed *because* of a separate overruling issue). From a reading of the associated bug (215036), it reads fairly clearly that the 0.x branch is not supported (security wise, in particular), and no further work will be done on it. That the port has been deprecated (DEPRECATED/EXPIRY_DATE) is evidence of that decision. ./koobs