[llvm-dev] RFC: Bug-closing protocol

[David Blaikie via llvm-dev]

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.

On Tue., 12 Jun. 2018, 7:51 am via llvm-dev, <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
wrote:

> 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...
> --paulr
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180612/a2c4d95d/attachment.html>