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 - 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
Sounds reasonable to push back on these bug closings (for instance by replying to the bugs/reopening them and asking for clarification) - not sure it warrants a particularly documented policy, but I don't much mind either way. On Tue., 12 Jun. 2018, 7:51 am via llvm-dev, <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> 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 > - 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 >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180612/a2c4d95d/attachment.html>
I did ping one, with no answer. There have been dozens in the past few days. I suppose I could have tried harder, but without something to point to it's my opinion versus somebody else's. --paulr From: David Blaikie [mailto:dblaikie at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 11:50 AM To: Robinson, Paul Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Bug-closing protocol Sounds reasonable to push back on these bug closings (for instance by replying to the bugs/reopening them and asking for clarification) - not sure it warrants a particularly documented policy, but I don't much mind either way. On Tue., 12 Jun. 2018, 7:51 am via llvm-dev, <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> 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 - 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<mailto: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/f7238a82/attachment.html>
I think what Vitaly and others are doing is OK if we just tweak the messaging.* In these cases where the bug has been open for more than a year and there isn't enough information to prove or disprove the existence of the bug, I think it's OK to close the bug (probably as WORKSFORME), but invite the user to reopen with more information if the problem is still affecting them. Otherwise we have to go through a dance of pinging the bug, asking for more info, and then close it a month later in the likely case that the original reporter has moved on and cannot reproduce the problem. I think it's better to communicate that, without more input, the community doesn't plan to take action. * BTW, bugzilla's messaging is totally crazy and user hostile to begin with. Users often have problems that are not compiler bugs, and we correctly close them as "INVALID", all caps. It's not a great experience. P.S. How long has it been now since users have had to email llvm-admin to create bugzilla accounts? This is an issue, we need to find a way to lower the barrier for bug reporting. :( On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 7:51 AM via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> 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 > - 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 >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180612/cccd62b8/attachment.html>
I should have said up front that I am *ecstatic* to see somebody closing old probably-worthless bugs. Better messaging is exactly what I'm after. We (properly) don't tolerate "Fix bug" as a commit message; we shouldn't tolerate similarly opaque bug-closing messages. It's the same principle of proper project communication. I'm fine with inviting the reporter to reopen if they still do care. What I'm not fine with is closing a bug for no clear reason, or at least no clearly *stated* reason. I'm also not open to an argument along the lines of: I've closed 100 bugs this week and I'm sick of repeating myself, everybody has seen this message 100 times already, I don't need to paste it in again. The buried assumption there is that everyone is on llvm-bugs, which is patently not the case. The most important person to communicate with, every single time, is the reporter; and while the reporter has to be registered with Bugzilla, we should assume they are *not* on the bugs list. --paulr From: Reid Kleckner [mailto:rnk at google.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 2:52 PM To: Robinson, Paul Cc: llvm-dev Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Bug-closing protocol I think what Vitaly and others are doing is OK if we just tweak the messaging.* In these cases where the bug has been open for more than a year and there isn't enough information to prove or disprove the existence of the bug, I think it's OK to close the bug (probably as WORKSFORME), but invite the user to reopen with more information if the problem is still affecting them. Otherwise we have to go through a dance of pinging the bug, asking for more info, and then close it a month later in the likely case that the original reporter has moved on and cannot reproduce the problem. I think it's better to communicate that, without more input, the community doesn't plan to take action. * BTW, bugzilla's messaging is totally crazy and user hostile to begin with. Users often have problems that are not compiler bugs, and we correctly close them as "INVALID", all caps. It's not a great experience. P.S. How long has it been now since users have had to email llvm-admin to create bugzilla accounts? This is an issue, we need to find a way to lower the barrier for bug reporting. :( On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 7:51 AM via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> 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 - 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<mailto: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/20180612/910af831/attachment.html>
+1 to all that On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 11:52 AM Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> I think what Vitaly and others are doing is OK if we just tweak the > messaging.* In these cases where the bug has been open for more than a year > and there isn't enough information to prove or disprove the existence of > the bug, I think it's OK to close the bug (probably as WORKSFORME), but > invite the user to reopen with more information if the problem is still > affecting them. Otherwise we have to go through a dance of pinging the bug, > asking for more info, and then close it a month later in the likely case > that the original reporter has moved on and cannot reproduce the problem. I > think it's better to communicate that, without more input, the community > doesn't plan to take action. > > * BTW, bugzilla's messaging is totally crazy and user hostile to begin > with. Users often have problems that are not compiler bugs, and we > correctly close them as "INVALID", all caps. It's not a great experience. > > P.S. How long has it been now since users have had to email llvm-admin to > create bugzilla accounts? This is an issue, we need to find a way to lower > the barrier for bug reporting. :( > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 7:51 AM via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > 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 >> - 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 >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180612/8db7e50a/attachment.html>
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 bugThere 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 >
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 >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180612/16a5102b/attachment-0001.html>
Sorry, I'll improve messaging. Most of bugs I closed this way are just "that the bug cannot be reproduced with trunk" or "not enough information and I don't expect reporter is going to provide any after so may years". If I misinterpret the bug, I expect push back from reporter. On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 7:51 AM via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> 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 > - 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 >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180613/5d1e8531/attachment-0001.html>
On 13 June 2018 at 19:52, Vitaly Buka via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> Sorry, I'll improve messaging. > Most of bugs I closed this way are just "that the bug cannot be reproduced > with trunk" or "not enough information and I don't expect reporter is going > to provide any after so may years". > If I misinterpret the bug, I expect push back from reporter.That's not unreasonable, especially if there hasn't been a concerted effort to ensure all bugs have sufficient information previously. Projects such as WINE introduce a 'NEEDSINFO' bug status, and automatically close bugs that have had that status for a certain length of time (in their case, 1 year) <https://wiki.winehq.org/Bugs#Bugzilla_Policies>. We could imagine adopting a similar process. Best, Alex