Nathan Wagner wrote: > 1: Can a bug be more than "open" or "closed"? > > I think yes. At least we probably want to know why a bug is closed. Is it > not > a bug at all, not our bug, a duplicate submission, a duplicate of another bug, > something we won't fix for some reason (e.g. a bug against version 7)
Not only that -- is the bug closed in all branches or only some of them? If there's also some data about when a bug appeared (commit ID), then it's easy to get a report of which minor releases have the bug. For instance, see bug #8470 which I fixed by commits in 9.5 and master, but is yet unfixed in 9.3 and 9.4. At least one other multixact bug was fixed in 9.5/master only. What debbugs allows you to do, is that you write to the bug address and in the first few lines of the body it looks for commands such as "close", "merge", "reassign". I for one am open fo commandeering a bug tracker in this way, as well as adding fixed-format tags to commit messages indicating "Fixes: #xyz" so that it can be picked up automatically. One of our policies in backpatching fixes is that we use the same commit in all branches so that they become grouped as a single element in the output of the src/tools/git_changelog script. Maybe that can be useful to the bug tracker as well, in some form. > 2: Who can declare a bug closed. > > Ugh. I'm going to close some of them if it seems obvious to me that they > should be closed. But what if it's not obvious? I could probably maintain it > to some extent, but I don't know how much time that would actually take. I think at least committers should be able to close bugs. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
