From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Thu May 31 21:07:41 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2EDAEFAE4D for ; Thu, 31 May 2018 21:07:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: from mail-it0-x22b.google.com (mail-it0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 819527F8BC for ; Thu, 31 May 2018 21:07:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: by mail-it0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id c3-v6so29803431itj.4 for ; Thu, 31 May 2018 14:07:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=v9Vr6oMJHj2aFn7yGJgdmPDiTPQUfyOV7w9SfjyBK78=; b=AZjd1JQMiNZLOfrG4KS2z8xCxyEFgzArPpxryOidNDKoPfpPFd7a1yaQ9yH+ywhMkK PYtdNF9ETt9WEjUpUy0deZ4k//rvUxDipI6vk+bwj/O/8/93pqegjTd/fFltuU8pGLfL hoM+vGc5sTIytwVRqJWLxaBu0oC2EkYvXIng37E4+Te4OttYwq+BaQAvihKwTpW1oB9T y7vRBG180503g82Wf7nM12/voX5W0frCqlIpubFWTNeC2F1KfvqU6XCwdJDqPoytY4Y+ IGv+meI/ZRUIX+EWPs74pmdUe//jrJMomh88jEIbcP/6siZTmeBrKp+kxihbhIUow3ZJ Nj0g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=v9Vr6oMJHj2aFn7yGJgdmPDiTPQUfyOV7w9SfjyBK78=; b=YUcrc9OfVby2rcjzK6fZT+jZzZ5C8eDVnPrTA7IxlT1b8wb2N+3xth1Yiv5e9+XwZz q8g52DpE53iXdt1G01aWVdPumATnJ5WK7Q+3PgFh8c0a6JulbHBDu/YImtLViH4W7cl1 sGEE2IMeHfIKKqLqty2ruzJ9+GLesTPtGodhmf0UV8HRVK3Tg7J4ItXv9lDkMmSSaXH7 B0sDBjvNBTSKgbXrgE46qMfwn9zVGGjH6mQRxnbDnia7u9aRoJyeuT+6CReGnQApwY6E TTAhwmHozpIgxBGxRuTz2o7bmvYQCFA7zbvHUWAI4RsLd52DHX/olnbWEC20JfbmA0UG ETag== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E0BwLEWvPNo5QZCM4GUBvfS4ZpuDQWANREOt8FY6vogBOwlTfhk /OETfOjyLRUY/0/Lc7VJcOvhTpU0ugwsaEZYTk39pA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKLJKXjCZbWqmNo0iDQ0qyrlWBFUeAG5SP3kHTgDQ+FCWH0FleYmrhVDIOumZ7xyKuE6p/P4h0uXjmOeL4b191A= X-Received: by 2002:a24:64ce:: with SMTP id t197-v6mr1657124itc.36.1527800859827; Thu, 31 May 2018 14:07:39 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: wlosh@bsdimp.com Received: by 2002:a4f:d028:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Thu, 31 May 2018 14:07:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [2603:300b:6:5100:1052:acc7:f9de:2b6d] In-Reply-To: References: From: Warner Losh Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 15:07:39 -0600 X-Google-Sender-Auth: pzHJaWbbTNutXPICCeUMTSKdijQ Message-ID: Subject: Re: PRs are being closed for bogus reasons :-( To: Dieter BSD Cc: "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.26 X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 21:07:41 -0000 On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 2:31 PM, Dieter BSD wrote: > Standard operating procedure at FreeBSD is: > > Ignore PR for years. > Close PR because it is "old". > > Question: In what universe is this acceptable? > > Example, from one of today's spam: > > > Unfortunately this PR was never addressed before these versions > > of FreeBSD went out of support. Sorry. > > > > If this is still a problem, please open a new PR. Thanks. > > Question: Support? What support? There is no support. > > Question: What would be the reason for someone to resubmit a PR > that was closed merely because it was "old"? > There's a problem with the PR database: there's too many bugs. Some of these bugs are real, some are not. Some have been fixed but never closed (either due to laziness on the part of the developer, or due to ignorance that the PR existed that matched the bug fixed). After a while, the report loses its value and just becomes noise that decreases the value of other bugs in the PR database. What Eitan is doing is to try to catch up with the backlog by asking people if the problem is still a bug, and if so to refile so we know that the information is fresh. In addition, he's been applying fixes that are easy that have languished. So, is this idea? Nope. However, it's clear that the project doesn't have the resources to re-validate bugs as still being a bug, at least given the volume of bugs in our bug database. This is not a terrible "second best" idea that should help the signal / noise ratio of the PR database, which makes it more valuable to developers and others that might fancy fixing a bug. The execution, however, could have explained these things better to avoid friction and hard feeling for people that had bugs so affected. Warner