[llvm-dev] RFC: Bug-closing protocol

[David Blaikie via llvm-dev]

Nah, don't think we've ever had that in LLVM - certainly would be nice to
have :)

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 5:48 PM Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> Isn't svn set up to auto-parse and post to the bug so you can just say
> "fixes bug 44444" and it parses it out?
>
> I mean, i added that to gcc like 15 years ago, i'm surprised we don't do
> this :)
>
> Nobody should have to add this info manually unless someone forgot to put
> it in a commit message.
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 1:36 PM, Tom Stellard via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> On 06/12/2018 07:51 AM, via llvm-dev 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
>>
>> There is a field in bugzilla called "Fixed By Commits" that I added
>> specifically for this information.
>>
>> -Tom
>>
>> > - 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180612/0bd2fcb0/attachment.html>