From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: How does the Emacs bug tracker work? Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 15:56:35 -0400 Message-ID: References: <4E0C44A2.1040604@dogan.se> <874o37tqq2.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1309468002 9575 80.91.229.12 (30 Jun 2011 21:06:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 21:06:42 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jun 30 23:06:37 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QcORZ-0006kR-7a for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 23:06:37 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39930 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QcORX-0008MI-CZ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 17:06:35 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:38198) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QcNLq-0007pN-Vv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 15:56:40 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QcNLp-00075c-Bj for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 15:56:38 -0400 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.181]:20617 helo=ironport2-out.pppoe.ca) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QcNLp-00075X-6a for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 15:56:37 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqwHAJvTDE5MCqDH/2dsb2JhbABSmGuObniIeL5yhjEEnk6EKw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,454,1304308800"; d="scan'208";a="118208901" Original-Received: from 76-10-160-199.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO pastel.home) ([76.10.160.199]) by ironport2-out.pppoe.ca with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 30 Jun 2011 15:56:36 -0400 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id A0C075912D; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 15:56:35 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen's message of "Thu, 30 Jun 2011 16:44:02 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 206.248.154.181 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:141280 Archived-At: >>> What about Wontfix bugs? Shouldn't we close these? >> Usually they're good and valuable as documentation. > Closed bugs are still there if you want to look at them. I see bugs as being in a few different states: - untriaged: we got the report and nothing else happened. - inprogress: there's been at least one reply to it. - stuck: like inprogress, but without activity because of lack of info. - forgotten: like stuck, except that rather than a lack of info, there's a lack of manpower. - ready: there's a patch that fixes the problem and it looks like we just have to double-check and/or cleanup the patch. - fixed: that's what we like. - wontfix: we don't think it's a bug, or we don't like the requested feature and would hence oppose a patch if someone provides it. - wishlist: not a bad idea, but noone cares enough to work on it. These states map more or less to debbugs tags/severities: - untriaged = "unclassified" - inprogress = ??? - stuck = "moreinfo" - forgotten = ??? - ready = "patch" - fixed = "fixed" or "closed" - wontfix = "notabug" or "wontfix" - wishlist = "wishlist" I don't really know what "closed" should mean in this respect and don't really care as long as I can easily select which above states I want to see. And I don't understand why Debbugs has "wishlist" as a severity rather than a tag (which prevents us from distinguishing important wishes from minor ones). The bad ones are "untriaged", "forgotten" and "ready", so we should come up with a way to distinguish inprogress from untriaged, as well as a way to mark the forgotten ones as well, so we can ask debbugs to show us these ones. I guess we could add "inprogress" and "forgotten" tags and then try to be careful to add "inprogress" whenever we first reply to a bug report. Then have some cron job check all the "inprogress" bugs and turn them into "forgotten" after some pre-defined delay (at which point humans way come and relabel it to "moreinfo" if the delay is not our fault). Stefan