Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:97621
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.161.170 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: jakub.php@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <7220c785-0039-7d55-83e2-a487aad26bc2@fedoraproject.org>
References: <CAL=_i_nuF0y8TC_GrWsX5e77sP-jKq+ed374SW0e=VxSPniVjg@mail.gmail.com>
 <912debc8-14db-2a0b-02f2-ce9487bdbb5c@fedoraproject.org> <CAEKnhAEHtyc7dJBF0f6hGHdBmrKbkZx=sifZZ_Y3NVaCjAJJTg@mail.gmail.com>
 <7220c785-0039-7d55-83e2-a487aad26bc2@fedoraproject.org>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2017 10:24:54 +0000
Message-ID: <CAEKnhAEynYbJ6Q2zWg_bwm-RirE7TRTCUHTtgDPe874Ygb7eQA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Remi Collet <remi@fedoraproject.org>
Cc: PHP internals list <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114260525593970545a6c741
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] bugsnet cleanup
From: bukka@php.net (Jakub Zelenka)

--001a114260525593970545a6c741
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Remi Collet <remi@fedoraproject.org> wrote=
:

> Le 09/01/2017 =C3=A0 10:59, Jakub Zelenka a =C3=A9crit :
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 7:25 AM, Remi Collet <remi@fedoraproject.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Le 08/01/2017 =C3=A0 07:46, Joe Watkins a =C3=A9crit :
> >>
> >>> I'd like to hear what others think about cleaning up bugsnet, what
> >> criteria
> >>> we might use for a mass cleanup.
> >>
> >> Big +1 for a mass cleanup.
> >>
> >> IMHO all bugs reported against PHP < 5.6 could be cleaned.
> >
> >
> > I disagree with this as many of bugs raised before 5.6 are still valid
> bugs
> > . The reason is that the code for many extensions hasn't changed for lo=
ng
> > time. Of course there was a port to 7.0 which fixed few and also
> introduce
> > others but most of the old bugs are still valid. It would just hide
> > existing issues IMHO.
>
> Notice that my proposal includes a "feedback" step ;)
>
>
Sure I noticed that. What I wanted to say is not just to automatically
close them if it's possible to try it (e.g. there is a piece of
reproducible code) and there is no feedback. Of course if it's not clear
how to recreate it and there is no feedback, then I agree it should be set
to "Won't fix".

--001a114260525593970545a6c741--