From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Don Armstrong Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: bug tracker spam Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2008 10:48:45 -0700 Message-ID: <20080601174845.GC10430@volo.donarmstrong.com> References: <20080529235125.GF3071@rzlab.ucr.edu> <20080530003037.GH3071@rzlab.ucr.edu> <8a7ida45v3.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1212342530 10603 80.91.229.12 (1 Jun 2008 17:48:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2008 17:48:50 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jun 01 19:49:30 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1K2rgP-0003Ye-Nd for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 01 Jun 2008 19:49:29 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51283 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1K2rfd-0000Zl-Qv for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 01 Jun 2008 13:48:41 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1K2rfZ-0000ZW-RS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 01 Jun 2008 13:48:37 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1K2rfX-0000ZK-E7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 01 Jun 2008 13:48:36 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=37484 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1K2rfX-0000ZC-89 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 01 Jun 2008 13:48:35 -0400 Original-Received: from rzlab.ucr.edu ([138.23.92.77]:38111) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1K2rfW-0005WV-RM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 01 Jun 2008 13:48:35 -0400 Original-Received: from rzlab.ucr.edu (rzlab.ucr.edu [127.0.0.1]) by rzlab.ucr.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id m51HmVSb022660 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2008 10:48:31 -0700 Original-Received: (from remotemail@localhost) by rzlab.ucr.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id m51HmVUi022659 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 1 Jun 2008 10:48:31 -0700 Original-Received: (nullmailer pid 20927 invoked by uid 1000); Sun, 01 Jun 2008 17:48:45 -0000 Mail-Followup-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8a7ida45v3.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:98191 Archived-At: On Sat, 31 May 2008, Glenn Morris wrote: > Don Armstrong wrote: > > Just mail me; I use rm. ;-) > > It would be nice if getting rid of spam was something maintainers > could do. Perhaps just tagging things as spam so that they appear in > a separate section of the summary until they are fully removed. Usually we use a cgi script so people can mark bugs that contain or are spam, and an administrator manually removes them later. The reason why this shouldn't be handled by maintainers is that it's the only action that cannot be reverted in the bts. [I suppose that eventually I'll have to come up with a method that scales better than the current ones, but it's scaled to > 450,000 bugs in Debian, and there are a bunch of things that need fixing which are higher on my priority list.] > more spam: #304, #340 Deleted. > There are also things like #312, #313, #207 that seem to be mistakes. > I don't know what to do about those. Anything that's not clearly spam, I suggest to keep. [They'll disappear from the main page as they get archived, so it won't be a problem long-term.] > Couple of other questions: > > How do I close a report in such a way that it is marked "this is not > a bug"? This isn't the same as "wontfix", IMO. You just close it, explaining that it's not a bug and why in the -done message. [A lot of the -done messages I've seen so far have been far too terse to extract any useful information from; it makes it really useful if a done message includes at least the commit message that caused a bug to be fixed and the revision.] If this happens a lot, we can add a notabug tag. > How do you (or will you) control who is allowed to manipulate bug > reports? We don't, generally speaking, because controlling it doesn't scale. If there's a problem, we can blacklist people. [I have all of about 5 entries in Debian's blacklist out of tens of thousands who have modified bugs, so it's rarely a problem.] Don Armstrong -- After the first battle of Sto Lat, I formulated a policy which has stood me in good stead in other battles. It is this: if an enemy has an impregnable stronghold, see he stays there. -- Terry Pratchett _Jingo_ p265 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu