Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [jdt-dev] Buffer overflow

@Stephan, all: As a JDT lead, +1 for to stop auto CLOSING.


-----jdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: -----
To: jdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
From: Stephan Herrmann
Sent by: jdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: 05/14/2020 07:18PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [jdt-dev] Buffer overflow

Now that Eclipse PMC asks for a vote among JDT leads / committers, I propose the
following compromise:

- stop auto CLOSING

-----jdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: -----
To: "Eclipse JDT general developers list." <jdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Mickael Istria
Sent by: jdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: 05/14/2020 09:09PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [jdt-dev] Buffer overflow

On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 5:31 PM Daniel Megert <daniel_megert@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You need to read the whole thread ;-).

I did and still...
 Some people cannot filter/trash based on body. Hence the suggestion to add [stale] to the subject.

I think the need for filtering comes from the fact that we artificially and automatically "animate" the bugs that have no activity. If we stop all forms of automated changes on such bugs, then there is no need to filter them any more...
So to me, filtering is a workaround for a problem, whose root cause is that we automatically process bugs. I suggest we get rid of the root cause, unless it has demonstrated some compelling value.

Also, imagine a bug that is [stale] in title, some committers have a filter to ignore them, a contributor just comment with some interesting input, or even a Gerrit patch, bug doesn't rename the bug (why would they?), then the filters still apply and the valuable contribution and further discussion get filtered out and ignored; which is even worse than auto-closing IMO.

jdt-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe from this list, visit

Back to the top