On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 4:39 AM, Eli Barzilay <[email protected]> wrote: > Yesterday, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: >> In my role as bug czar, I've been trying to work through the backlog >> of old unexamined bugs. Unfortunately, many of them (a) have very >> little information and (b) are from a long time ago. A good example >> is this one: http://bugs.racket-lang.org/query/?cmd=view&pr=9481 >> >> There are a few options here: >> 1. Close old (how old?) bugs that don't have enough information to >> triage/reproduce. >> 2. Put them in the "feedback" state, with a general request for more >> information. >> 3. Attempt to guess at what component this belongs to, and assign it >> that way. >> 4. Leave it in the current state. >> >> I think 3 and 4 are both unacceptable. I'm leaning toward 2. The >> major drawback of 2 vs 1 is that we accumulate lots of bugs that >> nothing will ever happen with. The major drawback of 1 is that we're >> saying to someone who took the time to report a bug "we didn't care >> about this bug at the time, so now we're closing it". > > I think that a sensible choice would be to combine #1 and #2: decide > that PRs that have been in feedback state for a while are retired. > It's easy to do this -- here's a query that shows all of these PRs > sorted by date of last modification:
That's basically what Robby suggested as well, and it seems right to me as well. I also did just close the example bug I gave. > http://bugs.racket-lang.org/query/?State=feedback;columns=Category;columns=Synopsis;columns=Last-Modified;sortby=Last-Modified;cmd=submit%20query > > Looks like there are very few of them and most could be closed. Unfortunately, some of these need to be re-triaged. For example, 6285 is a real bug, and I think is only accidentally in the feedback state. But there aren't that many, so it's ok. -- sam th [email protected] _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
