From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Marcin Borkowski Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Basic questions about the triage process Date: Sat, 02 Jan 2016 22:37:57 +0100 Message-ID: <87y4c7slvu.fsf@mbork.pl> References: <87lh8eoz7g.fsf@gnus.org> <87d1tqoye5.fsf@gnus.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1451770709 16273 80.91.229.3 (2 Jan 2016 21:38:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2016 21:38:29 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Xue Fuqiao , John Wiegley , Lars Ingebrigtsen , Andrew Hyatt , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Jan 02 22:38:19 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 1aFTsQ-0004Bp-3c for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 02 Jan 2016 22:38:18 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39795 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aFTsP-0003fD-Dz for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 02 Jan 2016 16:38:17 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45196) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aFTsL-0003f7-UX for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Jan 2016 16:38:14 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aFTsH-0005zw-US for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Jan 2016 16:38:13 -0500 Original-Received: from mail.mojserwer.eu ([2a01:5e00:2:52::8]:43456) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aFTsH-0005zh-Nt for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Jan 2016 16:38:09 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.mojserwer.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D325C8F2016; Sat, 2 Jan 2016 22:38:07 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.mojserwer.eu Original-Received: from mail.mojserwer.eu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.mojserwer.eu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 23x8mCQPZ0Mk; Sat, 2 Jan 2016 22:37:58 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from localhost (unknown [109.232.24.28]) by mail.mojserwer.eu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 620038F200B; Sat, 2 Jan 2016 22:37:58 +0100 (CET) User-agent: mu4e 0.9.13; emacs 25.1.50.1 In-reply-to: X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 2a01:5e00:2:52::8 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:197385 Archived-At: Hi, I'm starting to work on bugs, too. On 2015-12-29, at 02:50, Drew Adams 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