From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Paul Eggert Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: 4K Bugs Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2015 08:59:26 -0800 Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Message-ID: <567EC76E.8050701@cs.ucla.edu> References: <87mvszdp6b.fsf@gnus.org> <567E4ABA.3080803@online.de> <83vb7lijub.fsf@gnu.org> <567EAECD.2070403@online.de> <83d1tti2xr.fsf@gnu.org> <87twn5mabk.fsf@gnus.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1451149201 23119 80.91.229.3 (26 Dec 2015 17:00:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2015 17:00:01 +0000 (UTC) Cc: jwiegley@gmail.com, =?UTF-8?Q?Andreas_R=c3=b6hler?= , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Lars Ingebrigtsen , Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Dec 26 17:59:51 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1aCsC5-0007C3-2b for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 17:59:49 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39213 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aCsC4-0006nS-Ie for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 11:59:48 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50535) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aCsBs-0006nC-24 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 11:59:36 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aCsBr-0000wd-93 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 11:59:35 -0500 Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([131.179.128.68]:44127) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aCsBn-0000wD-D2; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 11:59:31 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CFB1160CC0; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 08:59:30 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id z0BaLbF8xdlT; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 08:59:29 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6666B160D77; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 08:59:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zimbra.cs.ucla.edu Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id ekchCeyiq7Kz; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 08:59:29 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from [192.168.1.9] (pool-100-32-155-148.lsanca.fios.verizon.net [100.32.155.148]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3E99D160CC0; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 08:59:29 -0800 (PST) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0 In-Reply-To: <87twn5mabk.fsf@gnus.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 131.179.128.68 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:196894 Archived-At: Lars Ingebrigtsen wrote: > I don't know how well this works for projects that auto-close bug > reports. Anybody have experience with that? I've done it both ways, and both ways work. As long as there's a sense of which bugs are more important and which less, and we never lose tracks of bugs even when fixed, the two ways are roughly equivalent. Of course one needs to have enough resources devoted to bug-fixing (and we should present the list of unfixed bugs in a non-demoralizing way :-). One option is to tag all open bugs as "moreinfo" after a new release, while sending email to the bug reporters to check whether "moreinfo" the bugs are still applicable in the new release. We can then remove the "moreinfo" tag for bugs that are later reported to still be relevant. This would require some discipline on our part, of course.