當有可以修正問題的 PR 出現，而相關負責的 developer(s) 也覺得這樣的修正可以接受，他們會 followup 該 PR，並將其狀態改為 "feedback"。同時，回報者應重新評估最終的修正結果，並回應：所回報的錯誤是否已成功修正。
FreeBSD 是 FreeBSD 基金會的註冊商標。
Motif, OSF/1, 和 UNIX 是 The Open Group 在美國和其他國家的註冊商標； IT DialTone 和 The Open Group 是其商標。
許多製造商和經銷商使用一些稱為商標的圖案或文字設計來區別自己的產品。 本文件中出現的眾多商標，以及 FreeBSD Project 本身廣所人知的商標，後面將以 “™” 或 “®” 符號來標示。
這篇文章主要在講：由 FreeBSD PR 維護小組所提出的一些 FreeBSD 問題回報(PR) 建議，希望大家在弄 PR 時都能遵守。
GNATS 是 FReeBSD 計劃所採用的一套專門管理錯誤(回報bug) 系統。 由於對 FreeBSD 品質保證而言，是否能準確掌握各項錯誤回報與進度是十分重要的， 因此，如何正確有效使用 GNATS 也就必須注意。
Access to GNATS is available to FreeBSD developers, as well as to the wider community. 為了讓 GNATS 資料庫使用上儘量一致，於是就產生了怎麼處理像是：followup(回文)、關閉PR等的參考原則。
首先，回報者(originator)以 send-pr(1) 送出 PR，然後會收到一封確認信。
然後，committer 們就會有人(假設叫做 Joe)發掘有興趣的 PR 並將該 PR 指派給自己來處理。 或者 bugbuster 會有人(假設叫做 Jane) 就會下決定：她覺得 Joe 比較適合處理，就將該 PR 指派(assign)給他
Joe 會先與有問題的回報者作些意見交流(以確定這問題有進入 audit 追蹤流程內) 以及判斷問題點。 然後再確定問題點有寫入 audit 追蹤流程之後，然後把該 PR 狀態設為 "analyzed(已分析)"。
Joe 開始徹夜找出問題解法，然後將 patch 送到 follow-up(回文用)，並請回報者協助測試是否正常。 然後，他就會將 PR 狀態設為 "feedback" 囉。
如此重複 analyzed、feedback 幾趟之後，直到 Joe 與回報者雙方都相當滿意 patch 結果， 於是就會將 patch 給 commits 進入
-STABLE)，在 commit log 內要把相關 PR 寫上去 (同時回報者若有送完整或部分 patch 的話，就順便記載)，然後，若沒什麼事的話，就開始準備 MFC 哩。 (譯註：MFC意指 Merged From CURRENT ，也就是把
若該 patch 不需要 MFC 的話，Joe 就會關掉(close)該 PR 了。
若該 patch 需要 MFC 的話，Joe 會把 PR 狀態改為 "patched(已修正)"， 直到已經 MFC 完畢，才會 close(關掉)。
很多送出來的 PR 都很少附上問題的相關訊息，而有些則是相當複雜難搞， 或只是提到部分表面問題而已； 遇到這種情況時，是非常需要得到所有相關訊息以便解決問題。 若遇到這種無解的問題或再次發生的話，就必須要 re-open(重新開啟) 該 PR，以待解決。
PR 上所附的 "email address" 可能因某些原因而無法收信時，遇到這種狀況，通常就是 followup 該 PR ，並(在 followup 時)請回報者重新提供可正常收信的 email address。 當系統上的 mail 系統關閉或沒裝的時候，這通常是在使用 send-pr(1) 的替代方案。
若 PR 有任何變化的話，請務必記得更新 PR 的『狀態(state)』。 『狀態』應該要能正確反映該 PR 的目前進度才是。
每份 PR 通常會有下面這幾種狀態之一：
已經送相關 patch 了，但仍因某些原因(MFC，或來自回報者的確認結果異常)因此尚未完畢。
因為沒附上相關訊息或參考資料，所以還沒辦法處理這問題。 This is a prime candidate for somebody who is looking for a project to take on. If the problem cannot be solved at all, it will be closed, rather than suspended. The documentation project uses suspended for wish-list items that entail a significant amount of work which no one currently has time for.
A problem report is closed when any changes have been integrated, documented, and tested, or when fixing the problem is abandoned.
The "patched" state is directly related to feedback, so you may go directly to "closed" state if the originator cannot test the patch, and it works in your own testing.
While handling problem reports, either as a developer who has direct access to the GNATS database or as a contributor who browses the database and submits followups with patches, comments, suggestions or change requests, you will come across several different types of PRs.
The following sections describe what each different type of PRs is used for, when a PR belongs to one of these types, and what treatment each different type receives.
5. Unassigned PRs
When PRs arrive, they are initially assigned to a generic (placeholder) assignee. These are always prepended with
freebsd-. The exact value for this default depends on the category; in most cases, it corresponds to a specific FreeBSD mailing list. Here is the current list, with the most common ones listed first:
bin, conf, gnu, kern, misc
alpha, i386, ia64, powerpc, sparc64
documentation shipped with the system
FreeBSD web pages (not including docs)
Java Virtual Machine™ problems
Do not be surprised to find that the submitter of the PR has assigned it to the wrong category. If you fix the category, do not forget to fix the assignment as well. (In particular, our submitters seem to have a hard time understanding that just because their problem manifested on an i386 system, that it might be generic to all of FreeBSD, and thus be more appropriate for
kern. The converse is also true, of course.)
Certain PRs may be reassigned away from these generic assignees by anyone. For assignees which are mailing lists, please use the long form when making the assignment (e.g.,
freebsd-foo instead of
foo); this will avoid duplicate emails sent to the mailing list.
Here is a sample list of such entities; it is probably not complete. In some cases, entries that have the short form are aliases, not mailing lists.
|Type||Suggested Category||Suggested Assignee|
problem specific to the ARM® architecture
problem specific to the MIPS® architecture
problem specific to the PowerPC® architecture
problem with Advanced Configuration and Power Management (acpi(4))
problem with Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) drivers
problem with FireWire® drivers
problem with the filesystem code
problem with the geom(4) subsystem
problem with the ipfw(4) subsystem
problem with Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) drivers
problem with Linux® or SVR4 emulation
problem with the networking stack
problem with PicoBSD
problem with the pf(4) subsystem
problem with the scsi(4) subsystem
problem with the sound(4) subsystem
problem with sysinstall(8)
problem with the system startup scripts (rc(8))
|Type||Suggested Category||Suggested Assignee|
problem with the ports framework (not with an individual port!)
port which is maintained by apache@FreeBSD.org
port which is maintained by eclipse@FreeBSD.org
port which is maintained by gnome@FreeBSD.org
port which is maintained by haskell@FreeBSD.org
port which is maintained by java@FreeBSD.org
port which is maintained by kde@FreeBSD.org
port which is maintained by openoffice@FreeBSD.org
port which is maintained by perl@FreeBSD.org
port which is maintained by python@FreeBSD.org
port which is maintained by x11@FreeBSD.org
Ports PRs which have a maintainer who is a ports committer may be reassigned by anyone (but note that not every FreeBSD committer is necessarily a ports committer, so you cannot simply go by the email address alone.)
For other PRs, please do not reassign them to individuals (other than yourself) unless you are certain that the assignee really wants to track the PR. This will help to avoid the case where no one looks at fixing a particular problem because everyone assumes that the assignee is already working on it.
6. Assigned PRs
If a PR has the
responsible field set to the username of a FreeBSD developer, it means that the PR has been handed over to that particular person for further work.
Assigned PRs should not be touched by anyone but the assignee. If you have comments, submit a followup. If for some reason you think the PR should change state or be reassigned, send a message to the assignee. If the assignee does not respond within two weeks, unassign the PR and do as you please.
7. 重複的 PR
If you find more than one PR that describe the same issue, choose the one that contains the largest amount of useful information and close the others, stating clearly the number of the superseding PR. If several PRs contain non-overlapping useful information, submit all the missing information to one in a followup, including references to the others; then close the other PRs (which are now completely superseded).
8. Stale PRs
A PR is considered stale if it has not been modified in more than six months. Apply the following procedure to deal with stale PRs:
If the PR contains sufficient detail, try to reproduce the problem in
-STABLE. If you succeed, submit a followup detailing your findings and try to find someone to assign it to. Set the state to "analyzed" if appropriate.
If the PR describes an issue which you know is the result of a usage error (incorrect configuration or otherwise), submit a followup explaining what the originator did wrong, then close the PR with the reason "User error" or "Configuration error".
If the PR describes an error which you know has been corrected in both
-STABLE, close it with a message stating when it was fixed in each branch.
If the PR describes an error which you know has been corrected in
-CURRENT, but not in
-STABLE, try to find out when the person who corrected it is planning to MFC it, or try to find someone else (maybe yourself?) to do it. Set the state to "feedback" and assign it to whomever will do the MFC.
In other cases, ask the originator to confirm if the problem still exists in newer versions. If the originator does not reply within a month, close the PR with the notation "Feedback timeout".
9. Misfiled PRs
GNATS is picky about the format of a submitted bug report. This is why a lot of PRs end up being "misfiled" if the submitter forgets to fill in a field or puts the wrong sort of data in some of the PR fields. This section aims to provide most of the necessary details for FreeBSD developers that can help them to close or refile these PRs.
When GNATS cannot deduce what to do with a problem report that reaches the database, it sets the responsible of the PR to
gnats-admin and files it under the
pending category. This is now a "misfiled" PR and will not appear in bug report listings, unless someone explicitly asks for a list of all the misfiled PRs. If you have access to the FreeBSD cluster machines, you can use
query-pr to view a listing of PRs that have been misfiled:
% query-pr -x -q -r gnats-admin 52458 gnats-ad open serious medium Re: declaration clash f 52510 gnats-ad open serious medium Re: lots of sockets in 52557 gnats-ad open serious medium 52570 gnats-ad open serious medium Jigdo maintainer update
Commonly PRs like the ones shown above are misfiled for one of the following reasons:
A followup to an existing PR, sent through email, has the wrong format on its
A submitter sent a Cc: to a mailing list and someone followed up to that post instead of the email issued by GNATS after processing. The email to the list will not have the category/PRnumber tracking tag. (This is why we discourage submitters from doing this exact thing.)
When completing the send-pr(1) template, the submitter forgot to set the category or class of the PR to a proper value.
When completing the send-pr(1) template, the submitter set Confidential to
yes. (Since we allow anyone to mirror GNATS via CVSup, our PRs are public information. Security alerts should therefore not be sent via GNATS but instead via email to the Security Team.)
10. Followups misfiled as new PRs
The first category of misfiled PRs, the one with the wrong subject header, is actually the one that requires the greatest amount of work from developers. These are not real PRs, describing separate problem reports. When a reply is received for an existing PR at one of the addresses that GNATS "listens" to for incoming messages, the subject of the reply should always be of the form:
Subject: Re: category/number: old synopsis text
Most mailers will add the “Re:” part when you reply to the original mail message of a PR. The “category/number:” part is a GNATS-specific convention that you have to manually insert to the subject of your followup reports.
Any FreeBSD developer, who has direct access to the GNATS database, can periodically check for PRs of this sort and move interesting bits of the misfiled PR into the audit trail of the original PR (by posting a proper followup to a bug report to the address bug-followup@FreeBSD.org). Then the misfiled PR can be closed with a message similar to:
Your problem report was misfiled. Please use the format "Subject: category/number: original text" when following up to older, existing PRs. I've added the relevant bits from the body of this PR to kern/12345
query-pr for the original PR, of which a misfiled followup is a reply, is as easy as running:
% query-pr -q -y "some text"
After you locate the original PR and the misfiled followups, use the
-F option of
query-pr to save the full text of all the relevant PRs in a UNIX® mailbox file, i.e.:
% query-pr -F 52458 52474 > mbox
Now you can use any mail user agent to view all the PRs you saved in mbox. Copy the text of all the misfiled PRs in a followup to the original PR and make sure you include the proper
Subject: header. Then close the misfiled PRs. When you close the misfiled PRs remember that the submitter receives a mail notification that his PR changed state to "closed". Make sure you provide enough details in the log about the reason of this state change. Typically something like the following is ok:
Followup to ports/45364 misfiled as a new PR. This was misfiled because the subject did not have the format: Re: ports/45364: ...
This way the submitter of the misfiled PR will know what to avoid the next time a followup to an existing PR is sent.
11. PRs misfiled because of missing fields
The second type of misfiled PRs is usually the result of a submitter forgetting to fill all the necessary fields when writing the original PR.
Missing or bogus "category" or "class" fields can result in a misfiled report. Developers can use edit-pr(1) to change the category or class of these misfiled PRs to a more appropriate value and save the PR.
Another common cause of misfiled PRs because of formatting issues is quoting, changes or removal of the
send-pr template, either by the user who edits the template or by mailers which do strange things to plain text messages. This does not happen a lot of the time, but it can be fixed with
edit-pr too; it does require a bit of work from the developer who refiles the PR, but it is relatively easy to do most of the time.
12. Misfiled PRs that are not really problem reports
Sometimes a user wants to submit a report for a problem and sends a simple email message to GNATS. The GNATS scripts will recognize bug reports that are formatted using the send-pr(1) template. They cannot parse any sort of email though. This is why submissions of bug reports that are sent to freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org have to follow the template of
send-pr, but email reports can be sent to FreeBSD problem reports 郵遞論壇.
Developers that come across PRs that look like they should have been posted to FreeBSD problem reports 郵遞論壇 or some other list should close the PR, informing the submitter in their state-change log why this is not really a PR and where the message should be posted.
The email addresses that GNATS listens to for incoming PRs have been published as part of the FreeBSD documentation, have been announced and listed on the web-site. This means that spammers found them. Spam messages that reach GNATS are promptly filed under the "pending" category until someone looks at them. Closing one of these with edit-pr(1) is very annoying though, because GNATS replies to the submitter and the sender’s address of spam mail is never valid these days. Bounces will come back for each PR that is closed.
Currently, with the installation of some antispam filters that check all submissions to the GNATS database, the amount of spam that reaches the "pending" state is very small.
All developers who have access to the FreeBSD.org cluster machines are encouraged to check for misfiled PRs and immediately close those that are spam mail. Whenever you close one of these PRs, please do the following:
Set Category to
Set Confidential to
Set Responsible to yourself (and not, e.g.,
freebsd-bugs, which merely sends more mail).
Set State to
Junk PRs are not backed up, so filing spam mail under this category makes it obvious that we do not care to keep it around or waste disk space for it. If you merely close them without changing the category, they remain both in the master database and in any copies of the database mirrored through CVSup.
下面這是在寫、處理 PR 時，可以參考的資料。當然很明顯，這份清單仍須補充。
How to Write FreeBSD Problem Reports-給 PR 回報者用的參考原則。