From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3506 invoked by alias); 28 Feb 2014 19:57:59 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 3497 invoked by uid 89); 28 Feb 2014 19:57:58 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 19:57:57 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s1SJvt8B023743 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 28 Feb 2014 14:57:55 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s1SJvsUc001037; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 14:57:54 -0500 Message-ID: <5310EA41.7030501@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 19:57:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Doug Evans CC: gdb Subject: Re: Bugzilla spring cleaning References: <53107055.5020000@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2014-02/txt/msg00074.txt.bz2 On 02/28/2014 05:15 PM, Doug Evans wrote: > On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 3:17 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: >> On 02/27/2014 06:11 PM, Doug Evans wrote: >>> Hi. >>> >>> There's a few cleanups I've wanted to see happen on our Bugzilla site. >>> >>> The ones that are currently on my mind are these: >>> >>> 1) Remove old entries from the "Versions" list. >>> >>> Do we really need 3.x and 4.x here? >>> Personally, I can see deleting 5.x too, and replacing all of them with >>> a "catch-all" field for old releases. >>> [I can also see deleting 6.x, but "baby steps" ...] >> >> What's the actual problem this is trying to solve? > > Improve the S/N ratio for users entering bugs. OK, that's more focused. You just said the "Versions" list, and that to me implied bug search as well, not just the new bug form. >>> I can imagine their appearance in some old bug making it >>> hard/impossible to accomplish this, but I won't know unless I ask. >> >> If there are bugs filed against those versions, then I don't >> see the point in removing them. > > Neither do I! [What words did I used to convey such a significant > probability that that is what I wanted? Let me know so I won't use > them again. :-)] - "spring cleaning" in the subject makes me go into "delete cruft" mode. - You hinted at "deleting 6.x" too. As surely you'll know there are bugs filed against those versions, I was led me to believe you wanted to just delete the bugs along with the versions, if possible. But I see now that you meant instead to merge those into the "catch-all" for old versions. > That is why I raised the possibility that what I want to achieve is > not achievable (*1). > OTOH, *if* we can remove entries from the Versions list, *and* it > doesn't affect existing bugs, then I'd like to do so. OK. >>> 1b) IWBN to reverse-sort the Versions list. >> >> I agree this is one would indeed be very nice. It's quite >> likely we have bugs erroneously reported against old versions >> simply because of this issue. Bugs converted from the old >> gnats (which I believe is the majority of filed bugs) fortunately >> have the "Release" field in the description text, so we >> could fix any in that situation. Furthermore, it seems to me >> that doing this pretty much would make the issue of eliminating >> old versions practically moot? > > The older versions in the list are still clutter and noise. Alright, now we're focusing only on the version list in the new bug form. Here I agree there's no need to allow reporting bugs against older versions. > Plus even with a reverse-sorted list it's still possible for users to > accidentally file a bug for the wrong version. Do we actually intend > to put any time into such old versions? I don't. Nor do I. > So let's turn it > around, what's the justification (setting aside caveat (*1) above), > for keeping them? Well, if you were talking about bug search, knowing which gdb version a bug was filed against. So I see no real good upside to merging old versions into a single catch-all for old releases, at some arbitrary moving cut off date -- I'd rather preserve history. For the new bug form, none that I'd insist on myself (discounting possible Bugzilla technical limitations). So the real question should be IMO: Should we allow users to report new bugs against old versions of GDB the community no longer supports? And here we agree. In my opinion, no, we shouldn't. Thanks, -- Pedro Alves