[llvm-dev] RFC: Bug-closing protocol
Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Tue Jun 12 11:51:49 PDT 2018
I think what Vitaly and others are doing is OK if we just tweak the
messaging.* In these cases where the bug has been open for more than a year
and there isn't enough information to prove or disprove the existence of
the bug, I think it's OK to close the bug (probably as WORKSFORME), but
invite the user to reopen with more information if the problem is still
affecting them. Otherwise we have to go through a dance of pinging the bug,
asking for more info, and then close it a month later in the likely case
that the original reporter has moved on and cannot reproduce the problem. I
think it's better to communicate that, without more input, the community
doesn't plan to take action.
* BTW, bugzilla's messaging is totally crazy and user hostile to begin
with. Users often have problems that are not compiler bugs, and we
correctly close them as "INVALID", all caps. It's not a great experience.
P.S. How long has it been now since users have had to email llvm-admin to
create bugzilla accounts? This is an issue, we need to find a way to lower
the barrier for bug reporting. :(
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 7:51 AM via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> TL;DR: It's okay to close a bug, if you can justify it properly.
> Recently there has been a spate of bug-closing with what I would call
> inadequate documentation. Comments such as "Obsolete?" or "I assume
> it's fixed" could be applied to nearly every open bug we have. While
> this does reduce the open bug count--something I have been watching
> with morbid fascination for years--I do fear that the reduction is
> potentially artificial, and incorrectly puts the onus on the original
> bug author to reopen the case.
> I suggest that closing a bug can be done IF AND ONLY IF you also state
> one of the following:
> - that revision NNNNNN actually fixed the bug
> - that the bug cannot be reproduced with revision NNNNNN
> - that the circumstances for the bug don't apply anymore; e.g.,
> "This is about the makefiles and we don't use makefiles anymore."
> - sound reasons for not fixing something (WONTFIX)
> - some specific and plausible reason to think that a given bug is
> otherwise inapplicable or obsolete
> In particular, "Obsolete?" and "I assume it's fixed" are NOT enough
> justification to close a bug.
> If people are okay with this, I'd expect adding a new section to the
> Developer Policy is probably the right place to put it.
> Comments/brickbats welcome...
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev