Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90669
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmx.de designates 212.227.17.22 as permitted sender)
To: Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>,
 Dan Ackroyd <danack@basereality.com>,
 "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <CA+kxMuSbgyzQ14j+YeVJo6a1ephgvB9tmjr35Ty7VTB2=2y_dw@mail.gmail.com>
 <56994046.3080605@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5699514E.9080805@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 21:06:38 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56994046.3080605@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Close some old issues
From: cmbecker69@gmx.de (Christoph Becker)

Stanislav Malyshev wrote:

>> I don't think having them kept open is providing any value, and it
>> makes it harder to find actual issues that need fixing in the issue
>> database, so I'd like to close some of them.
> 
> Bug DB triage is a hard, long and often thankless work. I am very
> thankful to you for spending your time on it.

ACK

>> bugs, or are too old to investigate. (e.g. A crash bug on PHP 4.3.9 is
>> not something that anyone should be looking at.)
> 
> I would say if it has reproduction, it should be checked on 5.5 still,
> unless it is hard (like installing complex software, etc.). Just to be
> sure. If no clear reproduction, close it.
> For extensions (such as https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=57735) it's
> harder because we don't know support status of those. It may be a real
> bug but the extension is not maintained anymore.

For old bug reports it might be reasonable to change the status to
"Feedback" and ask, whether the issue still persists.  This way the
report is likely going to end up with "No feedback", what's IMHO better
than "Closed" for such cases.

> Those that do require RFC I think is fine to close. Maybe have a
> standard text for that - like "This request describes a change that is
> substantial enough to warrant an RFC. Please read <link> and submit an
> RFC for the consideration for the community".

Good idea.

-- 
Christoph M. Becker