Date: Fri, 24 May 2019 11:52:28 +0000 From: Grzegorz Junka <list1@gjunka.com> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Policy on closing bugs Message-ID: <b182523b-7ef1-06a4-cee0-809311fcb39a@gjunka.com> In-Reply-To: <341fe47b-1104-3050-f85b-504be0460c48@gjunka.com> References: <2d6b1503-8ecd-6313-525b-e9f104fcb7f6@gjunka.com> <3ca47a0a-e8ae-e36f-c499-b26f8997e55c@FreeBSD.org> <341fe47b-1104-3050-f85b-504be0460c48@gjunka.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 24/05/2019 11:30, Grzegorz Junka wrote: > > On 24/05/2019 11:12, Kubilay Kocak wrote: >> On 24/05/2019 8:07 pm, Grzegorz Junka wrote: >>> Hey, >>> >>> Is there any policy/document when a bug can be closed? For example, >>> is it OK to close a bug that is fixed upstream but not yet in ports? >>> >>> Thanks >>> GrzegorzJ >>> >> >> Hi Grzegorz, >> >> Bugs are closed after they are "resolved". Resolved means a >> resolution has "occurred", but more precisely, the "thing reported" >> has been resolved. Resolved doesn't necessary mean "fixed" (see below) >> >> What resolution is appropriate/set depends on the context of the >> issue, usually the specific nature of the request/proposal. Is there >> a specific bug you're referring to? I can speak to that case >> specifically if so. >> >> For example however, if the bug was a "bug report for the >> port/package", fixed upstream hasn't fixed the port, so not usually, >> no, that wouldn't be considered sufficient to be "resolved" and closed. >> >> Usually commits upstream are backported to the ports, and they are >> closed when those are committed. >> >> There can't be policies for this perse, as its completely >> context/request dependent. >> >> Resolutions can take place either by way of: >> >> 1) A change is made: a commit, usually, but could be a wiki update, >> or a DNS update for infrastructure changes, etc. >> 2) One of the 'non-change' resolutions: not accepted, unable to >> reproduce, feedback timeout, etc >> >> Nothing about the above is special or different than most other issue >> trackers (generally speaking). >> >> Regarding states, we have New, Open, In Progress, Closed >> >> New: Not touched/Untriaged >> Open: Initially Triaged (classified) >> In Progress: Has a real (person) Assignee, action has started >> Closed: Change(s) Made, OR "Non-Change" resolution set. >> >> There's nothing special/different about these either, except that we >> like to have a real person assigned before in progress, and before >> close. >> >> Happy to answer any more questions regarding issue tracking, etc anytime >> > > Hi Kubilay, > > Thank you for a detailed response. Yes, this is related to a > particular defect. I didn't mention it because I didn't want to be > picky and seen as causing troubles :) Also wasn't sure what's OK and > what's not. Here is the defect: > > https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238086 > > I appreciate Yuri's contributions to the community and my intention > isn't to bring this up for judgment. Even though as a FreeBSD user I > might feel a bit ignored and shuffled under the carpet after the > defect has been closed, my intention was more to find out if maybe a > new state "Postponed" could be added for a defect in a state like this > one? > A very similar story with: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238088 It's not scheduled to be removed per se yet. The removal is under discussion with no clear path agreed as far as I know. I understand that a maintainer doesn't want to spend time working on a port that will likely undergo significant changes or removal but is closing the defect the right thing to do? And again, a "Postponed" state seems to me to be more appropriate? GrzegorzJ
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?b182523b-7ef1-06a4-cee0-809311fcb39a>