Re: Basic questions about the triage process

[Marcin Borkowski <mbork@mbork.pl>]

Hi,

I'm starting to work on bugs, too.

On 2015-12-29, at 02:50, Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> wrote:

>> > Yeah, if they're really old and aren't reproducing, closing them may be
>> > the right thing to do.
>> 
>> 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.
>
> FWIW, I disagree that there should be a 2-year limit, or any limit.
>
> If Emacs Dev has never responded to a bug report, no matter
> how old, then it should be treated as new.  If you cannot
> seem to reproduce it now then start by asking for more info -
> and not after closing it, just as you would do for a bug
> reported yesterday.
>
> If Emac Dev has responded previously, that's a different
> story.  But there is a giant backlog of bugs, and some of
> them are several years old (perhaps even many years old)
> and have never been responded to.
>
> What should count, if you must count time elapsed, is the
> time since the last attempt by a bug fixer to obtain info.
> If no one has ever tried, then the clock should be reset
> to zero.
>
> (Just one opinion.)

And another one, too - I agree with Drew on this

Best,

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
Adam Mickiewicz University