[llvm-dev] RFC: Bug-closing protocol

[Aaron Ballman via llvm-dev]

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 4:07 PM, via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> I should have said up front that I am *ecstatic* to see somebody closing old
> probably-worthless bugs.
>
>
>
> Better messaging is exactly what I'm after.  We (properly) don't tolerate
> "Fix bug" as a commit message; we shouldn't tolerate similarly opaque
> bug-closing messages.  It's the same principle of proper project
> communication.
>
> I'm fine with inviting the reporter to reopen if they still do care.  What
> I'm not fine with is closing a bug for no clear reason, or at least no
> clearly *stated* reason.
>
>
>
> I'm also not open to an argument along the lines of: I've closed 100 bugs
> this week and I'm sick of repeating myself, everybody has seen this message
> 100 times already, I don't need to paste it in again.
>
> The buried assumption there is that everyone is on llvm-bugs, which is
> patently not the case.  The most important person to communicate with, every
> single time, is the reporter; and while the reporter has to be registered
> with Bugzilla, we should assume they are *not* on the bugs list.

+1; I *love* that we're closing out old bugs, but let's communicate
the rationale appropriately for any state changes.

PS - The extra effort really helps when doing code archaeology, too!

~Aaron