A bug sweep like this is very valuable so thank you for starting to do it. Labelling older issues is also very useful.
If you are going to doing this a lot then you might be interested in the TUI I wrote to browse gitlab issues which makes traversing the issue list more ergonomic. https://github.com/mpickering/gitlab-triage Cheers, Matt On Sat, May 4, 2019 at 6:35 PM Kevin Buhr <[email protected]> wrote: > > I presume I can't be the first to ask this question, but I tried searching > the ghc-devs archives and didn't find anything. > > After accidentally clicking on the sort order button in the GitLab issue > list, I found myself browsing 18-year-old open issues that are clearly > obsolete (e.g., #515 related to bad source location info in LHS files long > since fixed, #517 which looks like a transient issue with error messages > affecting HEAD in March 2001, #519 which refers to "ghc -M" reading "import" > statements from comments which I tried and failed to duplicate. etc.). > > I would be interested in going through some of these and triaging and closing > them where appropriate. But I also don't want to be "that guy" -- you know, > the person who systematically works his or her way through the wiki > boldfacing all occurrences of the word "GHC" or submits 1200 merge requests > to remove doubled-space-after-period occurrences in comments. > > So, the first question is, would working on cleaning up these issues be > useful, or would it generate too much noise to be worthwhile? > > Second, if it *is* useful, what sort of policy/procedure would be most > helpful? There are a bunch of these issues that: > > have gone many years without any non-administrative activity > have clear test cases that can't be duplicated with modern GHC > don't involve any apparent unresolved technical issues > > I'd be pretty comfortable adding a comment documenting my failure to > duplicate them and then closing them. So, that might be a good first pass. > Is there any reason *not* to simply comment and close them immediately? For > example, I already closed #497 and #515 on this basis. Would it be better to > comment on them, maybe tag them with a new label like "issue cleanup", and > have a grace period before closing them? > > > -- > Kevin Buhr <[email protected]> > > _______________________________________________ > ghc-devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list [email protected] http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
