From owner-cvs-all Sun Apr 12 21:13:39 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA26894 for cvs-all-outgoing; Sun, 12 Apr 1998 21:13:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from thelab.hub.org (tc-60.acadiau.ca [131.162.2.160]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA26884; Sun, 12 Apr 1998 21:13:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from scrappy@hub.org) Received: from localhost (scrappy@localhost) by thelab.hub.org (8.8.8/8.8.2) with SMTP id BAA01144; Mon, 13 Apr 1998 01:13:03 -0300 (ADT) X-Authentication-Warning: thelab.hub.org: scrappy owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 01:13:02 -0300 (ADT) From: The Hermit Hacker To: Chuck Robey cc: Nate Williams , Poul-Henning Kamp , committers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: IMPORTANT: PRs in suspended state In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk On Sun, 12 Apr 1998, Chuck Robey wrote: > On Sun, 12 Apr 1998, Nate Williams wrote: > > > Poul-Henning Kamp writes: > > > In an attempt to get to the 3.0-RELEASE ready frame of mind, I am > > > doing a end-to-other review of our Gnats database right now. The > > > PRs which contain substance, but with little or no hope to get done > > > will be moved to "suspended" state. > > > > This seems silly to me, and makes us look even less professional. There > > is no difference between 'open' and 'suspended' at all. Putting a PR in > > suspended state is essentially the same as deleting it. > > > > Also, a few PR's were closed with "it ain't gonna get fixed", which is > > just plain stupid. Just because it isn't going to fixed before 3.0 > > doesn't mean it's isn't going to get fixed ever. The point of having a > > PR database is to have a record of those outstanding bugs that will get > > fixed. > > Do you have a suggestionj as to what to do with PRs that haven't > anything to do with software that is part of the FreeBSD tree? I'm > specifically referring to the PRs on ports stuff, where the complaint > isn't about the port per se, but about the operation of the software > that the port correctly installs. Such things are, IMO, even more > unprofessional, because they *can't* be fixed ... no method of closing > such PRs. It seemed to me that putting things in the suspend state was > a nice compromise. I have to disagree here...there comes a point when a PR is out-dated and irrelevant. Hell, just scanning through a few randomly shows up: From: Heikki Suonsivu To: freebsd-gnats-submit@freebsd.org Cc: hsu@clinet.fi Subject: kern/1098 File system corruption (2 cases) Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 04:33:44 +0200 (EET) fsck has been patched since this, so I am not quite sure if this any more exists. I haven't seen it for long time, so I think this can be closed. The person that submitted the problem report acknowledges that it can be closed, and its still open...and that was from a 2.2-CURRENT machine as of March/96 ... how relevant can that be now, even if the crashes continued? There has been *alot* of change over the past year...the old PR should be closed, and a newer, more relevant one, opened...IMHO... IMHO, -CURRENT related PRs should die relatively quickly (6mos?), -STABLE related slower (12mos?) and port-related *at least* when the port gets upgraded... Marc G. Fournier Systems Administrator @ hub.org primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message