[llvm-dev] RFC: Bug-closing protocol

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
15 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[llvm-dev] RFC: Bug-closing protocol

Adam Nemet via llvm-dev
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
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Bug-closing protocol

Adam Nemet via llvm-dev
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, <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Bug-closing protocol

Adam Nemet via llvm-dev

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:[hidden email]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 11:50 AM
To: Robinson, Paul
Cc: [hidden email]
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, <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev


_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Bug-closing protocol

Adam Nemet via llvm-dev
In reply to this post by Adam Nemet via llvm-dev
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 <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Bug-closing protocol

Adam Nemet via llvm-dev

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:[hidden email]]
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 <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev


_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Bug-closing protocol

Adam Nemet via llvm-dev
In reply to this post by Adam Nemet via llvm-dev
+1 to all that

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 11:52 AM Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Bug-closing protocol

Adam Nemet via llvm-dev
In reply to this post by Adam Nemet via llvm-dev
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 4:07 PM, via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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.

+1; I *love* that we're closing out old bugs, but let's communicate
the rationale appropriately for any state changes.

PS - The extra effort really helps when doing code archaeology, too!

~Aaron
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Bug-closing protocol

Adam Nemet via llvm-dev
In reply to this post by Adam Nemet via llvm-dev
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
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Bug-closing protocol

Adam Nemet via 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 <[hidden email]> 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
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev


_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Bug-closing protocol

Adam Nemet via llvm-dev
Nah, don't think we've ever had that in LLVM - certainly would be nice to have :)

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 5:48 PM Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
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 <[hidden email]> 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
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Bug-closing protocol

Adam Nemet via llvm-dev
https://gcc.gnu.org/viewvc/gcc/hooks/

is how it was done.

This used the incoming email handling for bugzilla i set up.

These days, you could just use bugzilla's rest API

IE a simple variant of https://github.com/mozilla/github-bugzilla-pr-linker/blob/master/app/app.py should work as a commit hook.

That thing is written as a service, you just need the find/add parts of the rest api, rip them out, and use it as a post-commit hook.



On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 5:49 PM, David Blaikie <[hidden email]> wrote:
Nah, don't think we've ever had that in LLVM - certainly would be nice to have :)

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 5:48 PM Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
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 <[hidden email]> 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
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev


_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Bug-closing protocol

Adam Nemet via llvm-dev

That solution semi-automates the first item in my list, and sounds like a great idea.

We still have the other 4 cases.

--paulr

 

From: llvm-dev [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 1:11 AM
To: David Blaikie
Cc: llvm-dev
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Bug-closing protocol

 

https://gcc.gnu.org/viewvc/gcc/hooks/

 

is how it was done.

 

This used the incoming email handling for bugzilla i set up.

 

These days, you could just use bugzilla's rest API

 

IE a simple variant of https://github.com/mozilla/github-bugzilla-pr-linker/blob/master/app/app.py should work as a commit hook.

 

That thing is written as a service, you just need the find/add parts of the rest api, rip them out, and use it as a post-commit hook.

 

 

 

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 5:49 PM, David Blaikie <[hidden email]> wrote:

Nah, don't think we've ever had that in LLVM - certainly would be nice to have :)

 

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 5:48 PM Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:

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 <[hidden email]> 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
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

 

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

 


_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Bug-closing protocol

Adam Nemet via llvm-dev
Hi Paul,

I’m one of those that closed at least one bug in this manner, without citing exact DNNN nor rNNN numbers. I’d like to fix that and do better in the future.

So I agree 100% with you that we really ought to be more thorough and diligent with the way we’re handling bugs.

I for one would really like for the bug filing/tracking mechanisms to be easier/simpler/convenient/ergonomic. In particular:

- Let’s automate as much of this as possible. I really like the idea of auto-closing bugs with some convention based on the commit message(s).

- Let’s have a process/policy by which we handle un-acknowledged or mis-assigned bugs. A triage process would be really helpful, and I understand that a lot of us are volunteers and/or part-time working on things.

- Let’s evaluate whether bugzilla is still the appropriate solution for issue tracking. Considering that there’s (huge) efforts for re-licensing and the proposal to move to using git (and a monorepo structure?) then maybe alternatives can be explored for the next iteration of the development process when those are done — including whether LLVM should stick with Bugzilla or use GitHub issues (as one example) instead with a lot of the automation features already in place.

This is perhaps a longer conversation that needs to happen and I’m interested in having that conversation (it’s very relevant to my interests).

Hope this helps.

> On 14 Jun 2018, at 02:58, via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> That solution semi-automates the first item in my list, and sounds like a great idea.
> We still have the other 4 cases.
> --paulr
>  
> From: llvm-dev [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev
> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 1:11 AM
> To: David Blaikie
> Cc: llvm-dev
> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Bug-closing protocol
>  
> https://gcc.gnu.org/viewvc/gcc/hooks/
>  
> is how it was done.
>  
> This used the incoming email handling for bugzilla i set up.
>  
> These days, you could just use bugzilla's rest API
>  
> IE a simple variant of https://github.com/mozilla/github-bugzilla-pr-linker/blob/master/app/app.py should work as a commit hook.
>  
> That thing is written as a service, you just need the find/add parts of the rest api, rip them out, and use it as a post-commit hook.
>  
>  
>  
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 5:49 PM, David Blaikie <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Nah, don't think we've ever had that in LLVM - certainly would be nice to have :)
>  
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 5:48 PM Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
> 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 <[hidden email]> 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
> > [hidden email]
> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>  
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>  
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

-- Dean

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Bug-closing protocol

Adam Nemet via llvm-dev
In reply to this post by Adam Nemet via llvm-dev
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 <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Bug-closing protocol

Adam Nemet via llvm-dev
On 13 June 2018 at 19:52, Vitaly Buka via llvm-dev
<[hidden email]> 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
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev