On 24/05/2019 11:12, Kubilay Kocak wrote:
On 24/05/2019 8:07 pm, Grzegorz Junka wrote:
Hey,
Is there any policy/document when a bug can be closed? For example,
is it OK to close a bug that is fixed upstream but not yet in ports?
Thanks
GrzegorzJ
Hi Grzegorz,
Bugs are closed after they are "resolved". Resolved means a resolution
has "occurred", but more precisely, the "thing reported" has been
resolved. Resolved doesn't necessary mean "fixed" (see below)
What resolution is appropriate/set depends on the context of the
issue, usually the specific nature of the request/proposal. Is there a
specific bug you're referring to? I can speak to that case
specifically if so.
For example however, if the bug was a "bug report for the
port/package", fixed upstream hasn't fixed the port, so not usually,
no, that wouldn't be considered sufficient to be "resolved" and closed.
Usually commits upstream are backported to the ports, and they are
closed when those are committed.
There can't be policies for this perse, as its completely
context/request dependent.
Resolutions can take place either by way of:
1) A change is made: a commit, usually, but could be a wiki update, or
a DNS update for infrastructure changes, etc.
2) One of the 'non-change' resolutions: not accepted, unable to
reproduce, feedback timeout, etc
Nothing about the above is special or different than most other issue
trackers (generally speaking).
Regarding states, we have New, Open, In Progress, Closed
New: Not touched/Untriaged
Open: Initially Triaged (classified)
In Progress: Has a real (person) Assignee, action has started
Closed: Change(s) Made, OR "Non-Change" resolution set.
There's nothing special/different about these either, except that we
like to have a real person assigned before in progress, and before close.
Happy to answer any more questions regarding issue tracking, etc anytime
Hi Kubilay,
Thank you for a detailed response. Yes, this is related to a particular
defect. I didn't mention it because I didn't want to be picky and seen
as causing troubles :) Also wasn't sure what's OK and what's not. Here
is the defect:
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238086
I appreciate Yuri's contributions to the community and my intention
isn't to bring this up for judgment. Even though as a FreeBSD user I
might feel a bit ignored and shuffled under the carpet after the defect
has been closed, my intention was more to find out if maybe a new state
"Postponed" could be added for a defect in a state like this one?
GrzegorzJ
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
