Date: Fri, 24 May 2019 11:30:17 +0000 From: Grzegorz Junka <list1@gjunka.com> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Policy on closing bugs Message-ID: <341fe47b-1104-3050-f85b-504be0460c48@gjunka.com> In-Reply-To: <3ca47a0a-e8ae-e36f-c499-b26f8997e55c@FreeBSD.org> References: <2d6b1503-8ecd-6313-525b-e9f104fcb7f6@gjunka.com> <3ca47a0a-e8ae-e36f-c499-b26f8997e55c@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?341fe47b-1104-3050-f85b-504be0460c48>