From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Nqa3w-0002MX-Cr for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 13 Mar 2010 22:44:04 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D5DEBE08F0; Sat, 13 Mar 2010 22:43:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E143E084D for ; Sat, 13 Mar 2010 22:43:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 001F21B4175 for ; Sat, 13 Mar 2010 22:43:38 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -2.557 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.557 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.042, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zOJ7sRULzGx0 for ; Sat, 13 Mar 2010 22:43:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E96D67FB8 for ; Sat, 13 Mar 2010 22:43:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Nqa3J-0007Nz-TW for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Sat, 13 Mar 2010 23:43:25 +0100 Received: from ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.231.22.224]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 13 Mar 2010 23:43:25 +0100 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 13 Mar 2010 23:43:25 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Handling of keywording bugs with only one arch Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 22:43:14 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <4B9A936B.3070804@gentoo.org> <4B9BC65D.9000504@gentoo.org> <4B9BC9B0.1020907@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: Pan/0.133 (House of Butterflies) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 447dc94b-bab2-4c63-8a98-728ce0923494 X-Archives-Hash: f71824848cb125451cbd072a79eee570 Samuli Suominen posted on Sat, 13 Mar 2010 19:21:52 +0200 as excerpted: > On 03/13/2010 07:07 PM, Petteri R=C3=A4ty wrote: >> When a bug is marked as fixed it doesn't show up in searches developer= s >> use so it's a matter of who reads the email and acts upon it. I don't >> see why maintainers would be any more likely to act than an arch team >> comprised of multiple people in the case of bigger arches. Let's not >> forget that users are really supposed to open new bugs instead of >> commenting on the resolved ones although I know there are users out >> there who rather comment on a two year old only distantly related bug >> than open a new one. >=20 > I would love to see a bugzilla feature that would entirely disable > commenting on closed bugs like on archlinux's bugtracking system[1] >=20 > [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/arch-general@archlinux.org/msg11996.htm= l >=20 > That might possibly need "Request reopen" button of somesort, or we > could just always require people to open new bugs >=20 > Often people just wish to argue about the closing status, after the bug > has been resolved... Keep in mind that disabling further comments would disable genuine=20 followups as well. There have been a few times where a bug I've filed was closed before I=20 found the ultimate cause of the bug (my config or fat-fingering), where I= =20 leave a comment when I do find the trigger, to hopefully help out others=20 who might have the issue later. There's also the issue of thanks, especially when it was a bug of my own=20 causing and the dev took the time to explain what I was doing or had=20 failed to do. Awhile back I asked here if thanks was appropriate in such= =20 cases, or simply the bother of an extra mail on an already closed bug and= =20 thus better to skip, and was told go for it, thanks is unfortunately quit= e=20 rare, and thus appreciated because bug squashing can sometimes feel prett= y=20 thankless, so I've tried to do so tho I can't say I always do. I'd feel=20 quite strange (and expect it would NOT be appreciated, so would simply=20 skip it) if I had to open a new bug just to say thanks for fixing the old= =20 one! But a note about opening a new bug if it's still an issue and you're not=20 the author and therefore can't reopen this one, possibly suggesting bug=20 clone, would probably be useful, I agree with petteri/betelgeuse there. --=20 Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman