<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I did ping one, with no answer. There have been dozens in the past few days. I suppose I could have tried harder, but without something to point to it's my
opinion versus somebody else's.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">--paulr<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></a></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> David Blaikie [mailto:dblaikie@gmail.com]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, June 12, 2018 11:50 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Robinson, Paul<br>
<b>Cc:</b> llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Bug-closing protocol<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Sounds reasonable to push back on these bug closings (for instance by replying to the bugs/reopening them and asking for clarification) - not sure it warrants a particularly documented policy, but I don't much
mind either way.<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Tue., 12 Jun. 2018, 7:51 am via llvm-dev, <<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<p class="MsoNormal">TL;DR: It's okay to close a bug, if you can justify it properly.<br>
<br>
Recently there has been a spate of bug-closing with what I would call<br>
inadequate documentation. Comments such as "Obsolete?" or "I assume <br>
it's fixed" could be applied to nearly every open bug we have. While <br>
this does reduce the open bug count--something I have been watching <br>
with morbid fascination for years--I do fear that the reduction is<br>
potentially artificial, and incorrectly puts the onus on the original<br>
bug author to reopen the case.<br>
<br>
I suggest that closing a bug can be done IF AND ONLY IF you also state<br>
one of the following:<br>
- that revision NNNNNN actually fixed the bug<br>
- that the bug cannot be reproduced with revision NNNNNN<br>
- that the circumstances for the bug don't apply anymore; e.g.,<br>
"This is about the makefiles and we don't use makefiles anymore."<br>
- sound reasons for not fixing something (WONTFIX)<br>
- some specific and plausible reason to think that a given bug is<br>
otherwise inapplicable or obsolete<br>
<br>
In particular, "Obsolete?" and "I assume it's fixed" are NOT enough<br>
justification to close a bug.<br>
<br>
If people are okay with this, I'd expect adding a new section to the<br>
Developer Policy is probably the right place to put it.<br>
<br>
Comments/brickbats welcome...<br>
--paulr<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
LLVM Developers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>