From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: phillip.lord@russet.org.uk (Phillip Lord) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Basic questions about the triage process Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2016 21:09:10 +0000 Message-ID: <87r3htjdvt.fsf@russet.org.uk> References: <87lh8eoz7g.fsf@gnus.org> <87a8otchlq.fsf@thinkpad.rath.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1452200979 10166 80.91.229.3 (7 Jan 2016 21:09:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 21:09:39 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Nikolaus Rath , Drew Adams , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Andrew Hyatt Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jan 07 22:09:28 2016 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 1aHHoD-00009p-3M for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2016 22:09:25 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:32823 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aHHo9-0003YF-6O for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2016 16:09:21 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44747) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aHHo4-0003UR-9b for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2016 16:09:17 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aHHo0-0001wb-5Z for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2016 16:09:16 -0500 Original-Received: from cheviot22.ncl.ac.uk ([128.240.234.22]:48713) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aHHnz-0001wJ-Vm for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2016 16:09:12 -0500 Original-Received: from smtpauth-vm.ncl.ac.uk ([10.8.233.129] helo=smtpauth.ncl.ac.uk) by cheviot22.ncl.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1aHHnz-0004hp-E5; Thu, 07 Jan 2016 21:09:11 +0000 Original-Received: from cpc1-benw10-2-0-cust373.gate.cable.virginm.net ([77.98.219.118] helo=localhost) by smtpauth.ncl.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1aHHnz-0005AN-1r; Thu, 07 Jan 2016 21:09:11 +0000 In-Reply-To: (Andrew Hyatt's message of "Tue, 29 Dec 2015 18:36:20 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 128.240.234.22 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:197762 Archived-At: Is there a "pending-closure" tag, that can be used to help the clean up? Then one person could send the "I think this is outdated now" email, and another close it later. Phil Andrew Hyatt writes: > Sounds like there's some widespread feeling that we should ask first > regardless of how much time has passed. The difference seems a bit minor > to me (the real issue is the languishing of bugs, I think), because the > only difference is whether we close before the email or after waiting > for a response. But I'll just ask first, give people a few weeks to > respond, and then close the bug if there's no response. > > FWIW, on the bugs I looked at yesterday, a few bounced from the > reporter's email, so I'll just close them immediately if that happens. > > Drew Adams writes: > >>> > To me, it feels a bit >>> > awkward to suddenly ask people to confirm anything after years have >>> > passed - just closing seems like a more reasonable approach to me. >>> >>> As a reporter, I can assure you that I feel exactly the other way >>> around. It takes time to write good bugreports, and if they languish for >>> several years only to eventually get closed because they "seem to have >>> been fixed" makes me angry. >>> >>> I consider a polite "I tried to reproduce it >>> but failed, could you confirm that this is fixed for you as well?" to be >>> much more respectful of my time and contribution. >> >> 100% agreement. Users who write bug reports are helping. >> Even more important: they are actively _trying_ to help.