Date: Fri, 24 May 2019 12:45:54 +0000 From: Grzegorz Junka <list1@gjunka.com> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Policy on closing bugs Message-ID: <85bd9ecf-6b66-324f-78eb-3170cb037248@gjunka.com> In-Reply-To: <3f2d8d56-c223-596e-caaf-d17d6a0decd5@FreeBSD.org> References: <2d6b1503-8ecd-6313-525b-e9f104fcb7f6@gjunka.com> <3ca47a0a-e8ae-e36f-c499-b26f8997e55c@FreeBSD.org> <341fe47b-1104-3050-f85b-504be0460c48@gjunka.com> <b182523b-7ef1-06a4-cee0-809311fcb39a@gjunka.com> <3f2d8d56-c223-596e-caaf-d17d6a0decd5@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 24/05/2019 12:34, Kubilay Kocak wrote: > 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. > Agreed in principle, but the port hasn't yet been marked as DEPRECATED/EXPIRATION_DATE. Unless it was done in the last few days (I synced my ports 18 May).
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?85bd9ecf-6b66-324f-78eb-3170cb037248>