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: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 17:50:00 +0200 Message-ID: <83vb7hdzkn.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87lh8eoz7g.fsf@gnus.org> <87d1tqoye5.fsf@gnus.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1451404174 16062 80.91.229.3 (29 Dec 2015 15:49:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 15:49:34 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: CHENG Gao Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Dec 29 16:49:30 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 1aDwWd-0003ly-Cg for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 29 Dec 2015 16:49:27 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49017 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aDwWc-0005ao-EL for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 29 Dec 2015 10:49:26 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44762) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aDwWP-0005aW-DI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 29 Dec 2015 10:49:14 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aDwWL-0008LG-C9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 29 Dec 2015 10:49:13 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:57489) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aDwWL-0008LC-8l; Tue, 29 Dec 2015 10:49:09 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:4488 helo=HOME-C4E4A596F7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1aDwWI-0005mV-Fw; Tue, 29 Dec 2015 10:49:08 -0500 In-reply-to: (message from CHENG Gao on Tue, 29 Dec 2015 14:46:48 +0800) 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:197084 Archived-At: > From: CHENG Gao > Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 14:46:48 +0800 > > > Andrew, I think your strategy is good, but can we turn that clock back > > to two years? Emacs doesn't move all that rapidly. If you can't > > reproduce something From 2013 or earlier, close it as cannot reproduce > > with a CC to the original reporter. Otherwise, ping the submitter with > > a CC to the bug address saying it can't be reproduced, but leave it > > open. > > Maybe the strategy needs a clarification of version supporting policy or > should be based on said policy if it exists. We always support only the latest released version, but if a bug reported in an old version still exists in the latest one, we try fixing it in the next release. IOW, I don't see any relation between version support policy and the strategy of triage of bug reports. > The priority could be as below: > > Number one: emacs-25 branch related > Should have highest priority since they'll block the release. > > Number two: emacs git > They slow down moving train. > > Number three: emacs 24.x > Maybe a policy to include accumulated fixes in a new release untill > support dropped, for example yearly bugfix on Dec. 25 or Dec. 31. > Bug fixes only, no new feature backports. > > Number four: emacs 23.x/22.x etc (justing kidding. No kidding?) > If bothered by "cannot sleep thinking users are abandoned in darkness" > syndrome, accept users submitted patches and release accumulated bugfix > minor version each year as above. I don't think triage should depend on bug priority. On the contrary, priority can only be established once the triage has been done; thus, triage should always have the highest priority, IMO.