Re: [arch-general] Pruning the bugtracker
On Wed, 4 May 2011 20:43:27 +0200, JM wrote: I have browsed through all High and Medium severity bugreports and categorized some of them here: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Fijam . Maybe we should also consider a more aggressive approach. There are currently more than 600 open bugs. Instead of reviewing each of them we could look for a way to automatically close quite old bugs and ask the reporter to request a re-open if the bug is still valid. -- Pierre Schmitz, https://users.archlinux.de/~pierre
Re: [arch-general] Pruning the bugtracker
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Jelle van der Waa je...@vdwaa.nl wrote: On 05/04/2011 09:35 PM, JM wrote: On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Grigorios Bouzakisgrb...@xsmail.com wrote: JMfi...@archlinux.us wrote: I have browsed through all High and Medium severity bugreports and categorized some of them here: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Fijam . 'Candidates for closing' are divided into two categories: strong and weak. Strong candidates have not been replied to in over 4 months (with some bugs seeing no activity for over a year) with the last comment asking for more information or confirmation whether the bug still persists. I have not yet started issuing closure requests but will do so in two weeks if noone replies to those reports. Weak candidates have not been replied to in less than four months, the resolution of the bug was unclear or the original submitter found another solution and failed to provide any more information. I will wait for another month before issuing closure requests. Note: jelle van der waa (jelly) asked for confirmation on many of those bugs and deserves all the praise. I have also identified some bugs where more input or a confirmation of a fix is needed and asked for it. Will try to do initial triaging on those bugs or mark them as candidates for closing if the submitter fails to respond. There was also a couple of bug reports that seemed to be going nowhere. There was either a failure in communication, unresolved argument, a patch with no feedback from the developers or a request to split a bug into two or more specific reports. These should probably be reviewed again. There are still Low and Very Low severity bugs to go through, so perhaps some other user wants to pick up where I left :) Thanks for doing this. You could have used the already set up https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Bug_Day_TODO page though instead of your user page. That might need a bit of cleaning up but if you're willing to transfer properly the ones on your page there i will help with this if you lack the time to invest doing the clean up yourself. Greg I have seen this page but it is a bit of a mess. I will clean it up and merge both lists during the weekend, possibly adding a category 'candidates for removal' based on my own criteria if that's OK. JM I have been trying to get the bugtracker a bit cleaned up, there are a lot of kernel related bugs which are reported with a version 2.6.35. Most of these bugs are 'waiting on response' and I'd say they should be closed. -- Jelle van der Waa I have updated the list at https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Bug_Day_TODO. It would be great if someone wanted to browse through Low and Very Low severity bugs in Arch Linux and Community Packages as I have only browsed through High and Medium. Cheers, JM
Re: [arch-general] Pruning the bugtracker
2011/5/6 Yclept Nemo orbisvi...@gmail.com: Speaking for the bugs I watch: https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/15746 FS#15746 - [kismet] should be built make suidinstall Should be simple enough to take a decision. I will get ride of this bug .. -- Angel Velásquez angvp @ irc.freenode.net Arch Linux Developer / Trusted User Linux Counter: #359909 http://www.angvp.com
Re: [arch-general] Pruning the bugtracker
On 05/04/2011 09:35 PM, JM wrote: On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Grigorios Bouzakisgrb...@xsmail.com wrote: JMfi...@archlinux.us wrote: I have browsed through all High and Medium severity bugreports and categorized some of them here: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Fijam . 'Candidates for closing' are divided into two categories: strong and weak. Strong candidates have not been replied to in over 4 months (with some bugs seeing no activity for over a year) with the last comment asking for more information or confirmation whether the bug still persists. I have not yet started issuing closure requests but will do so in two weeks if noone replies to those reports. Weak candidates have not been replied to in less than four months, the resolution of the bug was unclear or the original submitter found another solution and failed to provide any more information. I will wait for another month before issuing closure requests. Note: jelle van der waa (jelly) asked for confirmation on many of those bugs and deserves all the praise. I have also identified some bugs where more input or a confirmation of a fix is needed and asked for it. Will try to do initial triaging on those bugs or mark them as candidates for closing if the submitter fails to respond. There was also a couple of bug reports that seemed to be going nowhere. There was either a failure in communication, unresolved argument, a patch with no feedback from the developers or a request to split a bug into two or more specific reports. These should probably be reviewed again. There are still Low and Very Low severity bugs to go through, so perhaps some other user wants to pick up where I left :) Thanks for doing this. You could have used the already set up https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Bug_Day_TODO page though instead of your user page. That might need a bit of cleaning up but if you're willing to transfer properly the ones on your page there i will help with this if you lack the time to invest doing the clean up yourself. Greg I have seen this page but it is a bit of a mess. I will clean it up and merge both lists during the weekend, possibly adding a category 'candidates for removal' based on my own criteria if that's OK. JM I have been trying to get the bugtracker a bit cleaned up, there are a lot of kernel related bugs which are reported with a version 2.6.35. Most of these bugs are 'waiting on response' and I'd say they should be closed. -- Jelle van der Waa
[arch-general] Pruning the bugtracker
I have browsed through all High and Medium severity bugreports and categorized some of them here: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Fijam . 'Candidates for closing' are divided into two categories: strong and weak. Strong candidates have not been replied to in over 4 months (with some bugs seeing no activity for over a year) with the last comment asking for more information or confirmation whether the bug still persists. I have not yet started issuing closure requests but will do so in two weeks if noone replies to those reports. Weak candidates have not been replied to in less than four months, the resolution of the bug was unclear or the original submitter found another solution and failed to provide any more information. I will wait for another month before issuing closure requests. Note: jelle van der waa (jelly) asked for confirmation on many of those bugs and deserves all the praise. I have also identified some bugs where more input or a confirmation of a fix is needed and asked for it. Will try to do initial triaging on those bugs or mark them as candidates for closing if the submitter fails to respond. There was also a couple of bug reports that seemed to be going nowhere. There was either a failure in communication, unresolved argument, a patch with no feedback from the developers or a request to split a bug into two or more specific reports. These should probably be reviewed again. There are still Low and Very Low severity bugs to go through, so perhaps some other user wants to pick up where I left :) Cheers, JM
Re: [arch-general] Pruning the bugtracker
JM fi...@archlinux.us wrote: I have browsed through all High and Medium severity bugreports and categorized some of them here: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Fijam . 'Candidates for closing' are divided into two categories: strong and weak. Strong candidates have not been replied to in over 4 months (with some bugs seeing no activity for over a year) with the last comment asking for more information or confirmation whether the bug still persists. I have not yet started issuing closure requests but will do so in two weeks if noone replies to those reports. Weak candidates have not been replied to in less than four months, the resolution of the bug was unclear or the original submitter found another solution and failed to provide any more information. I will wait for another month before issuing closure requests. Note: jelle van der waa (jelly) asked for confirmation on many of those bugs and deserves all the praise. I have also identified some bugs where more input or a confirmation of a fix is needed and asked for it. Will try to do initial triaging on those bugs or mark them as candidates for closing if the submitter fails to respond. There was also a couple of bug reports that seemed to be going nowhere. There was either a failure in communication, unresolved argument, a patch with no feedback from the developers or a request to split a bug into two or more specific reports. These should probably be reviewed again. There are still Low and Very Low severity bugs to go through, so perhaps some other user wants to pick up where I left :) Thanks for doing this. You could have used the already set up https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Bug_Day_TODO page though instead of your user page. That might need a bit of cleaning up but if you're willing to transfer properly the ones on your page there i will help with this if you lack the time to invest doing the clean up yourself. Greg
Re: [arch-general] Pruning the bugtracker
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Grigorios Bouzakis grb...@xsmail.com wrote: JM fi...@archlinux.us wrote: I have browsed through all High and Medium severity bugreports and categorized some of them here: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Fijam . 'Candidates for closing' are divided into two categories: strong and weak. Strong candidates have not been replied to in over 4 months (with some bugs seeing no activity for over a year) with the last comment asking for more information or confirmation whether the bug still persists. I have not yet started issuing closure requests but will do so in two weeks if noone replies to those reports. Weak candidates have not been replied to in less than four months, the resolution of the bug was unclear or the original submitter found another solution and failed to provide any more information. I will wait for another month before issuing closure requests. Note: jelle van der waa (jelly) asked for confirmation on many of those bugs and deserves all the praise. I have also identified some bugs where more input or a confirmation of a fix is needed and asked for it. Will try to do initial triaging on those bugs or mark them as candidates for closing if the submitter fails to respond. There was also a couple of bug reports that seemed to be going nowhere. There was either a failure in communication, unresolved argument, a patch with no feedback from the developers or a request to split a bug into two or more specific reports. These should probably be reviewed again. There are still Low and Very Low severity bugs to go through, so perhaps some other user wants to pick up where I left :) Thanks for doing this. You could have used the already set up https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Bug_Day_TODO page though instead of your user page. That might need a bit of cleaning up but if you're willing to transfer properly the ones on your page there i will help with this if you lack the time to invest doing the clean up yourself. Greg I have seen this page but it is a bit of a mess. I will clean it up and merge both lists during the weekend, possibly adding a category 'candidates for removal' based on my own criteria if that's OK. JM
