[llvm-dev] RFC: Bug-closing protocol

[David Blaikie via llvm-dev]

+1 to all that

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 11:52 AM Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> 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>
> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180612/8db7e50a/attachment.html>