Re: [resolution] Stale BZ Bug Tracker reports

2018-11-09 Thread William A Rowe Jr
I clicked send on this note, before I saw the deluge.

What we would not want is to hide closure notices to the cc recipients on
the issue. We would not want to remove bugs@ from the issue itself. And
anyone reconfirming a ticket is not stale is going to the bugs@
notification list.

My only thought on avoiding this in the future is to suspend the bugs@ list
entirely for a several minute period while the mass update notifications
are sent. Then restore the normal list behavior.

If you simply want to hide this mass update, I would unthread your mail
reader, and mass select and delete all email notices during that small 5
minute window.

Another option, I kept with threading, and mass deleted only those updates
with no other notices in a multi-year period. I'm now going back over some
70 closures which had an active discussion at some point in the not so
distant past.

Sorry for this somewhat painful side effect of this cleanup operation.
Since we've decided most other updates will employ some level of manual
scrutiny and intervention, there shouldn't be another burst of notices for
some years to come.


Re: [resolution] Stale BZ Bug Tracker reports

2018-11-09 Thread Yann Ylavic
Hi Bill,

On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 10:22 PM William A Rowe Jr  wrote:
>
> Mass update completed.

Would it be possible now to have buz send us an email on bugs@ (and
possibly only bugs@) for tickets still in the "open" field (i.e. not
resolved/invalid/...)?

For those of us who track bz but by email, the massive update has put
stale entries on the top of the list...
Emails are easier to follow (IMHO), and getting an update for "open"
entries shouldn't hurt (provided it does not ping the OP/CCs too), and
could even ring some bells for each of us.

Thanks for update work in any case!

Regards,
Yann.


[resolution] Stale BZ Bug Tracker reports

2018-11-07 Thread William A Rowe Jr
Mass update completed. Search criteria;

Version: 2.0-HEAD, 2.0.32, 2.0.35, 2.0.36, 2.0.39, 2.0.40, 2.0.42, 2.0.43,
2.0.44, 2.0.45, 2.0.46, 2.0.47, 2.0.48, 2.0.49, 2.0.50, 2.0.51, 2.0.52,
2.0.53, 2.0.54, 2.0.55, 2.0.58, 2.0.59, 2.0.61, 2.0.63, 2.0.64, 2.0.65,
2.1-HEAD, 2.2-HEAD, 2.2.0, 2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.2.4, 2.2.6, 2.2.8, 2.2.9,
2.2.10, 2.2.11, 2.2.12, 2.2.13, 2.2.14, 2.2.15, 2.2.16, 2.2.17, 2.2.18,
2.2.19, 2.2.20, 2.2.21, 2.2.22, 2.2.23, 2.2.24, 2.2.25, 2.2.26, 2.2.27,
2.2.29, 2.2.31, 2.2.32, 2.2.33, 2.2.34, 2.3.11-beta, 2.3.12-beta,
2.3.14-beta, 2.3.15-beta Resolution: --- Status: NEW, NEEDINFO Product:
Apache httpd-2

715 bugs found.

Status updated; RESOLVED, LATER
Keyword added; MassUpdate
Comment added;
Please help us to refine our list of open and current defects; this is a
mass update of old and inactive Bugzilla reports which reflect user error,
already resolved defects, and still-existing defects in httpd.

As repeatedly announced, the Apache HTTP Server Project has discontinued
all development and patch review of the 2.2.x series of releases. The final
release 2.2.34 was published in July 2017, and no further evaluation of bug
reports or security risks will be considered or published for 2.2.x
releases. All reports older than 2.4.x have been updated to status
RESOLVED/LATER; no further action is expected unless the report still
applies to a current version of httpd.

If your report represented a question or confusion about how to use an
httpd feature, an unexpected server behavior, problems building or
installing httpd, or working with an external component (a third party
module, browser etc.) we ask you to start by bringing your question to the
User Support and Discussion mailing list, see [
https://httpd.apache.org/lists.html#http-users] for details. Include a link
to this Bugzilla report for completeness with your question.

If your report was clearly a defect in httpd or a feature request, we ask
that you retest using a modern httpd release (2.4.33 or later) released in
the past year. If it can be reproduced, please reopen this bug and change
the Version field above to the httpd version you have reconfirmed with.

Your help in identifying the defects or enhancements to the current httpd
server software is greatly appreciated.