[FreeBSD-Announce] FreeBSD bug tracking moves from GNATS to Bugzilla

[Torsten Zuehlsdorff]

On 05.06.2014 02:19, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 12:59 AM, John Marino <freebsd.contact at marino.st
> <mailto:freebsd.contact at marino.st>> wrote:
>
>     On 6/4/2014 09:46, Torsten Zuehlsdorff wrote:
>      >>
>      >> I know for certain that people in the past have given up after
>     submitting
>      >> PRs that were never answered.  While I know we don't have the
>     manpower to
>      >> deal with all of them, that should at least be our ideal.
>      >
>      > Yes. It is really frustrating to create a bug-report with a complete
>      > patch just to wait for some months and seeing that nothing
>     happens. And
>      > even after offering help it is closed with "timeout" and the bug
>     still
>      > exists.
>
>     That's not what a timeout is.  Timeout does not mean "close the PR
>     regardless after a certain about of time".  PRs generally stay open
>     indefinitely unless the problem has been resolved or the situation is
>     obsolete.
>
>     If what you said occurred, that was wrong.  I'd have to see the actual
>     PR to verify no misunderstanding though.  I just want to nip in the bud
>     some kind of misconcept about "timeouts" ... which means (for ports PRs)
>     any committer can taken over the PR and the maintainer has no right to
>     complain about that.  The timeout is on the maintainer, not the PR.
>
>
>      > And yes: trivial bugs are important. If something trivial not
>     work, why
>      > use it? So it should be very easy to submit a report.
>
>     Non-sequitur.
>     Besides "trivial" being an extremely loaded word that doesn't indicate
>     the true cost of the fix, I see no relation of the severity of said bug
>     versus the reporting process.  It would logically follow that critical
>     bugs should therefore be extremely difficult to report, which is, of
>     course, absurd.  The process should be the same regardless.
>
>     John
>
>
> I think that there are  two different timeouts involved.
>
> 1. Maintainer fails to respond to a port update PR and any committer can
> pick it up. PR is NOT closed.
> 2. Committer (possibly maintainer) looks at an old PR for a port that
> has been updated to a new port version. The commiter is unable to
> reproduce the problem and asks the submitter to confirm whether it has
> been fixed. If the submitter fails to respond, the PR is marked as timed
> out and closed.

Neither was. It was a mistake by the comitter. We cleared the problem 
off-list. I wrote a new patch and it is already in the ports

Greetings,
Torsten