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: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 18:36:20 -0500 Message-ID: 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 1451432198 21505 80.91.229.3 (29 Dec 2015 23:36:38 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 23:36:38 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Nikolaus Rath , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Dec 30 00:36:32 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 1aE3oe-0007EI-0i for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 00:36:32 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50598 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aE3od-0004Cr-GW for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 29 Dec 2015 18:36:31 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40184) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aE3oa-0004Cl-QJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 29 Dec 2015 18:36:29 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aE3oX-0000Ic-IF for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 29 Dec 2015 18:36:28 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-qg0-x235.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400d:c04::235]:33655) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aE3oX-0000IW-EG for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 29 Dec 2015 18:36:25 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-qg0-x235.google.com with SMTP id b35so44956843qge.0 for ; Tue, 29 Dec 2015 15:36:25 -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=x/XStE7qYnzGdTP5K/k9sKROpCjdCgZXxn5vOy7Cj4A=; b=ifowwbSgqVYs/Kqga0GlL0v38Tz7+nbM8kxQVp+rRAhhy2B5lzVSGlioIkarjZHu8r 4tTPMS0q0vvYWxHX1BAAoYFX4n3zEFgjNYv/5yhMlFYWLs300BRLdgMizcqLzvJMtjYd DfELDUU6C97Pyzvb+2WdYVDLIoxXsVBMBXwpQJm6Uw+rXOmmblOdAOzDd/667uvozYcy Nh0Yo7/hs8YwdoP1OiTmk89cW7Zn/HgswevAN7MXnmQNtnoJjVRl8j4oS8kPv27kUV75 7XImcbABUBsZDCFC33M8f6dND7AQdKl/xjyCak5WAnZR4UVxEnjWWln0L2FIvbwOixBl uJnA== X-Received: by 10.140.101.201 with SMTP id u67mr29320943qge.33.1451432184984; Tue, 29 Dec 2015 15:36:24 -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 z132sm15022058qka.14.2015.12.29.15.36.22 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 29 Dec 2015 15:36:22 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: (Drew Adams's message of "Tue, 29 Dec 2015 09:50:30 -0800 (PST)") 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:c04::235 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:197149 Archived-At: 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.