Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:97580 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 46109 invoked from network); 8 Jan 2017 13:00:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 8 Jan 2017 13:00:19 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=cmbecker69@gmx.de; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=cmbecker69@gmx.de; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmx.de designates 212.227.17.22 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: cmbecker69@gmx.de X-Host-Fingerprint: 212.227.17.22 mout.gmx.net Received: from [212.227.17.22] ([212.227.17.22:62912] helo=mout.gmx.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id AC/16-31343-1E732785 for ; Sun, 08 Jan 2017 08:00:18 -0500 Received: from [192.168.2.109] ([217.82.227.120]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx101 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LpwZn-1cvwex3W4t-00ffE4; Sun, 08 Jan 2017 14:00:13 +0100 To: Joe Watkins , PHP internals References: Message-ID: <8c7deca0-3834-0104-fd49-447dfe3f5a24@gmx.de> Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2017 14:00:11 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:xm7fIoaenNImLq69rY7Od0Ok11zZSumfYrb2rkCAEvH2/DZau82 pa/qavsiu7SsfBQFawAOT/Gi4ycktkiMw1GOcOqJR3YPLMMHBANK1fGafvp4bUggGlfCA0C ++TnP7yi2I7ULw8dktQ5k0+LeULbJ8DIF/0wtg3H9CzVNAU5nkdoHxxRN6EvAnceJXRpzFD yNBLMR4DxcRTGnRREq2sg== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:PjUaK7T51ig=:xIlS7cpB6e4iRNRGvYDY5S q+KHxK9GKjJ6WiDl6ak8FMwdYLUhn8Ae8N/dJRrB80fDXbGCGeZAOYyGPi+N0FoRC0Wyi7D9U pkWuZM0b8684+UBqmK9/NTpyglm9tIdwkS8AfbV5SAzR0idQjGLb8e6Id33yIkAXSvtCvELMe OYWgE1MkuZkqctYPWVeJOvx62tisGIIN9IlP4/2a7t0D1N9GowgC9BgXP8yF72qa8ASiivSXv AmZ3WK4d+qkVVpTjCM40sTgAIz+2g1AnytdS5liDNnwrqddkb7erTfxodL+M2iaATr2p1o3Ru 19pOF/yYT8SXLabzW06/SKWrgQs6Wtok6hkmC6HWg70kL5ObSFvf0fRmfe30KXYXkRrhuG1oe tNB683xzmxF/9Dvh+QrLEmSVxOoOIB7/g042drNYb3Re8i7ziZMVbTYGCapAFHBiMoZ4U8ZPT x89ZjO/tFyc3XWLLhE9DcD0vWxrDU6zMAz6Uqu5PDxfLMZJ9Tue/J+r991WBxcPDjKZZEsDdq sqmCmdOVKPYpW0qTp7fhv+T0LJ5MCKR4l7gRAcIzNi5AI5XwRqDxG0PSzm4FKTb74EZPpKXVC 0G7ljk4gxiywqKfHICisXLJpS+YhxSxt/QaOE8gFHE/MeVjOrUd8KucbGtwJc6/qpVweIqZlZ 5ZCIxoSdTXCIdY6VfQ8Vc0xT1JQX0lvOlQyYUyqa6sC6yluVBg2UDMZ/tVukSLJM079/aPznk 3hFiTudEi1k/fczd9/q+2NlHtO+PDi7n7UAbfMXY1EFaq6O3VOdaJK+1NwpGFUb7KKKp168Un qDdTtcoCVOX2ZANmonu0MlUabKg+A== Subject: Re: bugsnet cleanup From: cmbecker69@gmx.de ("Christoph M. Becker") On 08.01.2017 at 07:46, Joe Watkins wrote: > Some of you may have noticed that a few of us have put considerable effort > into cleanup of pull requests on github, these are now manageable and I'm > quite confident that we will be able to merge pull requests in a timely > manner, and stay on top of it. > > When it comes to bugsnet, there are feature requests and bugs that have > been open for more than 10 years, and nobody has talked about them in about > as long, they may concern defunct versions of PHP, or removed extensions or > SAPIs: These numbers in the thousands. > > It's very difficult (impossible) to see a good reason for these to be open, > they are not useful at all. > > With normal support for 5 ended, now is the perfect time to cleanup > bugsnet. If we can get the numbers down to something manageable, we have a > reasonable expectation to stay on top of them. > > I think anyone that has been waiting a number of years for a response to a > feature request deserves to know that it is not reasonably happening, and > that there are better ways of trying to get a feature in than opening > yet-another-feature-request on bugsnet. > > I think any bug report opened against 4 and not updated is useless. > > I think anything with a patch attached targeting 5 is useless, regardless > of age; they should be encouraged to open a pull request on github against > a supported branch. > > I'd like to hear what others think about cleaning up bugsnet, what criteria > we might use for a mass cleanup. > > After a mass cleanup, I/we will go in and start working through whatever is > left, but 5k mostly irrelevant bugs is too much to ask, it would take me > months and months to work through those, time that nobody has, or will ever > have. Thanks for bringing this up, Joe. Generally, I fully agree that we should clean up the bug tracker ASAP. I'm not sure, though, if doing a general mass cleanup would really be the best thing. For instance, there are long-standing feature requests which should already have been addressed, such as #32803 (I'm going to start the RFC on this particular one soon) and #31784 (fontconfig is already supported by external libgd, but not by our bundled one). Also, there are long-standing bug reports such as #34670 which ideally would have been resolved in the meantime, but haven't. Just wiping those under the carpet wouldn't be an improvement, in my opinion. Instead it would be great if we had active maintainers for all extensions, and that these maintainers would concentrate on tickets regarding their respective extensions (including relevant doc bugs). PECL extensions which are not maintained anymore should be clearly marked as such (on PECL and in the PHP manual), and all unresolved issues could be marked as suspended. Unmaintained bundled extensions should be considererd to be moved to PECL as soon as possible (there is already a RFC draft[1] about this – I hope this will proceed soon). Old tickets which can't be easily verified might best be handled by asking whether the problem persists and setting the issue to "Feeback" (such as #58167). That would still give users the possibility to confirm that there's an unresolved problem, what appears to be preferable to having a new follow-up ticket ("bug #12345 has been closed, so I'm opening this ticket"). Also, we may consider building a triage team, similar to what had been proposed for the pull requests[2], but never made it to a discission. It seems to me that there a quite some developers who could assess a certain issue, but might not be able to solve it by themselves with a reasonable amount of effort. Those more proficient with the engine or the respective extension could concentrate on bugs labeled "verified" and "analyzed". [1] [2] -- Christoph M. Becker