Policy on closing bugs

[Grzegorz Junka]

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