Skip to main content

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

I am also not a fan of auto-closing but I like the idea to ping the author to verify whether the bug is still relevant. I'm not sure whether the webmaster can do this, but maybe we could add a comment, mark it stale (not in subject) and only send a note to the author.

Or we stop doing that at all. The number of bugs does not decrease. They just have a different status. I would also support that approach.


From:        Mickael Istria <mistria@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:        "Eclipse JDT general developers list." <jdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:        14.05.2020 17:39
Subject:        [EXTERNAL] Re: [jdt-dev] Buffer overflow
Sent by:        jdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

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