From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andrew Hyatt Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Basic questions about the triage process Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2015 19:59:52 -0500 Message-ID: References: <87lh8eoz7g.fsf@gnus.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1451350817 25732 80.91.229.3 (29 Dec 2015 01:00:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 01:00:17 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Xue Fuqiao , jwiegley@gmail.com, "emacs-devel@gnu.org" To: Lars Ingebrigtsen Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Dec 29 02:00:16 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 1aDie6-0004r4-W8 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 29 Dec 2015 02:00:15 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46739 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aDie6-0004at-Hv for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 20:00:14 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58245) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aDids-0004aZ-NQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 20:00:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aDido-0008SD-64 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 20:00:00 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-qk0-x234.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400d:c09::234]:34548) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aDido-0008Rp-18 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 19:59:56 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-qk0-x234.google.com with SMTP id p187so199854711qkd.1 for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 16:59:55 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=ATI/r5ygM3WS63HNTmDVG9tw32WEfYTHqG/HMrVd3j0=; b=HUSHzYo/f7Jl+6ALSXuXYiN0SVcKGgLtMLC1uiSdjfa4IDpJBBUag9oA1JdxoB2Lgw qQGQ8V/7/DL0wLmsMk+HJAPPGAz8yMdAF+to1sZ7XVLBy1xoRRz23FTJPEde7bYPgFsE QiV7cetWvDLIYYETt9e8PyXE3QG+GZmWAOZ+EC0FpEv0lGfnJQHMV3OC7zK9L74ctJ3R +5giJmsYawPVdTSPsZ5unaox1gG13kciiJQ+KHT0U27s1EpB0g+0odlBqQO6k4q+5EjQ 5DeVUyRcJyPhWX92/wMVqJDeU1Ui2GYHJ68A7I4DuV83wg37szsHdX7EnwiRqcWRwRoF JzLw== X-Received: by 10.55.192.214 with SMTP id v83mr74993917qkv.31.1451350795584; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 16:59:55 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from Andrews-MacBook-Pro.local.ahyatt-laptop (cpe-74-73-128-199.nyc.res.rr.com. [74.73.128.199]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r83sm28097985qhc.8.2015.12.28.16.59.54 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 28 Dec 2015 16:59:54 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87lh8eoz7g.fsf@gnus.org> (Lars Ingebrigtsen's message of "Tue, 29 Dec 2015 01:50:11 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4 (darwin) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:400d:c09::234 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:197051 Archived-At: Lars Ingebrigtsen writes: > Andrew Hyatt writes: > >> Great, thanks for the replies. I've started, and I'm going to start to >> mark the ones I can't reproduce as "doneunreproducable". > > Well, even though you can't reproduce the bug doesn't mean that it > necessarily isn't a valid bug -- there may be steps necessary that the > bug reporter hasn't mentioned fully. > > I usually mark bugs as "unreproducible" and then send an email to the > reporter asking whether it's gone away. If the reporter doesn't respond > within a reasonable amount of time, then it's fine to close the bug. That sounds like a good idea for bugs of reasonable recentness. I'm going through old bugs that are years old now. 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. But I'll follow your advice for bugs in the last year. If you feel strongly that time elapsed shouldn't matter, though, I'm happy to do it your way all the time. Also, I'm assuming that the bug can always be re-opened if necessary. Maybe that isn't the case.