From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Basic questions about the triage process Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 19:21:42 +0200 Message-ID: <837fjvdf89.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83ege5dvra.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1451496083 5955 80.91.229.3 (30 Dec 2015 17:21:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 17:21:23 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Andrew Hyatt Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Dec 30 18:21:19 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 1aEKR3-0002V6-LB for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 18:21:17 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:53216 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aEKQz-0008LR-Et for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 12:21:13 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54194) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aEKQf-0008Ko-Q1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 12:20:54 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aEKQb-0003eM-QN for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 12:20:53 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:56717) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aEKQb-0003eI-NC; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 12:20:49 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:1210 helo=HOME-C4E4A596F7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1aEKQb-0005AI-1q; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 12:20:49 -0500 In-reply-to: (message from Andrew Hyatt on Tue, 29 Dec 2015 19:22:27 -0500) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e 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:197179 Archived-At: > From: Andrew Hyatt > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 19:22:27 -0500 > > >> +The goal of this triage is to prune down the list of old bugs, closing > >> +the ones that are not reproducible on the current release. > > > > I think triage is more than that: it should also strive to classify > > the bugs according to their importance. > > Yes, but isn't that more about triaging new bugs? I'm not writing about > that yet - but if someone tells me how to triage new bugs I'm happy to > write it up. You assume that old bugs already underwent this procedure, and if they did, their category is still correct. But neither of these assumption is necessarily true. Some bugs were triaged, others (I suspect most of them) were not. Moreover, their current category might very well be inaccurate, certainly if many years went by. So I think some effort should go into verifying that a bug does have a category that we still think to be correct. > >> + 4. Your changes will take some time to take effect. After a period of minutes > >> + to hours, you will get a mail telling you the control message has been > >> + processed. At this point, you and everyone else can see your changes. > > > > That mail can also say there were errors, something to mention here, I > > think. > > Mentioned, but I'm a bit at a loss on what to say if there were errors. One needs to read the error message and resubmit the control message modified as appropriate. E.g., one example I tend to bump into is when I merge a bug with another one, and debbugs refuses because their state is different -- in that case one needs to change the state of one of the two bugs and then resubmit the merge directive. Thanks.