Close all old samba "3" bugzillas ?
simo at samba.org
Wed Mar 21 17:42:29 UTC 2018
On Wed, 2018-03-21 at 10:20 -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 04:39:50PM +0100, Björn JACKE via samba-technical wrote:
> > On 2018-03-21 at 08:41 -0400 Simo via samba-technical sent off:
> > > They may still be valid but they are clogging bugzilla needlessly and
> > > if nobody is asking anything about those it means they are bugs nobody
> > > cares for.
> > unfortunately we have plenty of valid bugs that just none of us cared for to
> > look at or comment on for years even though the bug description is clear,
> > sometimes even a fix it part of the bug report.
> > > > The age of a Samba version is not a reason for closing a bug for us.
> > >
> > > I think it is, EOLed versions will not see bugfixing anyway.
> > nobody says that the a bug will have to be fixed in 3.0 but some bugs are still
> > valid for master.
> > > Who is we ?
> > those team members who took part in the discussion and argumentation
> > > I only know that bugzilla is almost useless to find relevant bugs to
> > > tackle. If bugs are not going to be fixed the *reasonable* thing to do
> > > is to warn the person that opened them (and everyone else) that we are
> > > not going to tackle them by closing WONTFIX/EOL and let people that
> > > care about a specific bug to reopen it if they care, or just let it go
> > > if they stopped caring.
> > >
> > > Keeping dead bugs around serves who exactly ?
> > bugs are not dead just because none of the samba developers looked into or
> > commented on it. I don't disagree to close bugs that are most probably fixed
> > or badly described or probably misconfigurations or...or...or. But not blindly
> > closing old bugs with the comment that the version it was reported for is EOL.
> Both Simo and you have a point.
> However, bugs kept in the "zombie" state (even with fix attached)
> are not good for the project. No one is looking at them.
> If Simo were to propose deleting the data, I would agree with
> Björn. But that's not what he's asking for.
> Marking the bug as WONTFIX/EOL keeps the data, and allows the
> bug to be ressurected if anyone looks at it, or re-raises the
> IMHO marking WONTFIX/EOL is acknowleging the reality of the
> situation, in that no one is going to look at pre-4.0.x
> bugs unless there is end-user activity around the issue.
> Just my 2cents. Maybe we should vote on this ?
Thank you Jeremy, you perfectly summarized my view.
More information about the samba-technical