From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 696 invoked by alias); 28 Feb 2014 17:15:57 -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 682 invoked by uid 89); 28 Feb 2014 17:15:56 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-ve0-f173.google.com Received: from mail-ve0-f173.google.com (HELO mail-ve0-f173.google.com) (209.85.128.173) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 17:15:54 +0000 Received: by mail-ve0-f173.google.com with SMTP id jw12so1031013veb.4 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 09:15:52 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=zV30wQMUnxkRnFWKzoT/ZVYyRakqszwy/07ykePQiLg=; b=Eil/GX9XIbBdKLCqB/I4j+N1hX+yOyaRzk92dMMDFhbM6IhNfybmi4bPI2txiK4kzE aheFqBcPy5YUbsBc/KyLZgGr4lQE13EniwsynOaTKZpUqTB74aitVKzvau88IWtCzL4E tCo0FczseGKszjh79QkyhaQ2c9nvodgkdloTMH0mb46gG6dDdsRLeRE+85JO+uVGzp0o NbmFQaTVL2baG+wdxGkuGRN/65T8mX3nfdzWGxjTvLNua8zzHx9FDH3iOeO1dhXZDt1p 7AvPpMijb0hzZ4ySnveIop0T6G27Ol9OjBDBsZyb1Yh4jmx8nLsxQ1cPTOBauuClR2se lXOA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl0DPuhYvqw8IGGZlj19e/0nSOlwAzKGOcEPPfVhtuM4QC8R2n4gM0iXqtJoWDitTaBhBSEU/mh1wp3bVJKW4fPWTaN0VphlqlkR+GX5rz3xzVNH6LdtMeH2k/imm1jL64C6ZDItdXG7zV64O0DnrHF2OAY1krIJz3FYaKGxQuDbiyX7oGJc1dWyYizOirI1KaMyMGb MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.108.228 with SMTP id hn4mr1606457vdb.43.1393607751804; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 09:15:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.52.51.234 with HTTP; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 09:15:51 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <53107055.5020000@redhat.com> References: <53107055.5020000@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 17:15:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Bugzilla spring cleaning From: Doug Evans To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-02/txt/msg00070.txt.bz2 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. >> 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. :-)] 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. > My first reaction would be to > object. I see no upside in simply dropping history of old GDBs. > > But I don't really know what is the oldest GDB that does have > bugs filed against. If indeed there's no bug filed for > those old versions, then I'll definitely agree with removing them. > > Closing bugs filed against old releases that have had no > input for quite a long time would be a different discussion. > But it's not clear to me whether that's what you're proposing. I have a separate proposal for that, to follow in a separate thread. >> 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. 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. So let's turn it around, what's the justification (setting aside caveat (*1) above), for keeping them? >> 2) The "Target Milestone" list could also use some trimming. > > Offhand, same as above. > > -- > Pedro Alves >