From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 10 21:24:01 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D82BC16A400 for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2007 21:24:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: from mail.soaustin.net (mail.soaustin.net [207.200.4.66]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC62E13C448 for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2007 21:24:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: by mail.soaustin.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 4C83CE6A; Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:24:01 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:24:01 -0500 To: Steve Kargl Message-ID: <20070710212401.GB20941@soaustin.net> References: <20070710044902.GA62286@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20070710155313.GB2730@soaustin.net> <20070710160802.GA66351@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070710160802.GA66351@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i From: linimon@lonesome.com (Mark Linimon) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 21:27:37 +0000 Cc: Mark Linimon , freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Closing some old bug reports. X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 21:24:01 -0000 On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 09:08:02AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 10:53:13AM -0500, Mark Linimon wrote: > > Done. fwiw, you can always email bugmeister@FreeBSD.org with these > > type of requests and we'll clean them up. > > Then only bugmeister will see the list of PR. Well, true. > > Out of curiosity, did the problems get resolved in later releases, or ...? > > (I only saw the one commit that fixed a problem in the list, but some were > > so old they would not have gotten the auto-annotation from the commit.) > > AFAIK, only one was fixed. I guess what I'm trying to get at is I like to close PRs that are obsoleted by event (unsupported kernel; hardware no longer available) but am concerned about closing ones that are still problems, no matter that they're old. What I have found in the last few years of working through the PR backlog is that the age of a PR does not necessarily correlate with whether the problem has been resolved. (This is especially true for bin/ PRs, where I am still trying to generate more committer interest in resolving them. The kern/ PRs tend to be of two types, "fix for specific problem" and "can't get XYZ to work"; the latter tend to get stale more than the former). We have a long way to go before we could claim that we respond promptly to PRs, and we are going to have to "evolve" ourselves in that direction. We've actually made a great deal of progress on that so far this year. We are doing better at triaging PRs as they come in, and we now have a way to flag a small subset of PRs that the bugbusting team thinks are ready for committer attention. So what I'm saying is that I hope I didn't just close some PRs for legitimate problems just because you're frustrated with the pace of progress :-/ mcl