On 12/23/19 7:02 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 23.12.19 08:29, berni44 wrote:
>> 22. day: 4 bugs were removed (issues 7737, 17232, 17597, 19564)
>>
> 
> Both of my issues you have attempted to close should not have been. Please stop the vandalism. I hope you have not been closing other issues that should have stayed open, but it appears your judgement can be rather biased towards closing issues. Probably someone should go over all the closed issues and make sure we are not losing anything of value.

I feel there is no reason to take offense or consider this "vandalism". If an issue is not touched in a long time (years even), closing it can be a valid resolution. He's closed bugs of mine from over 10 years ago, that I completely forgot about, and don't care about any more. If I want them to remain open, I'll reopen. At the very least, it forces people to reconsider the issue instead of ignoring it. There is very little harm in closing and reopening an issue.

I'd rather have 10 stale issues closed and one relevant one incorrectly closed (that I reopen) than leave all the stale issues.

-Steve

On Monday, 23 December 2019 at 12:02:39 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
> Both of my issues you have attempted to close should not have been.

Actually, when I remember right, there where three issues, which I closed, because I considered them invalid (and in each of them I gave a reason, why I was doing so), which where reopened by the reporter. [1] [2] and [3]. I still consider two of them invalid, only one of them [3] is from you and maybe I got something wrong there, but as long, as I do understand this issue like I do at the moment I judge it invalid. The other one from you [2] got a separate thread in this forum. After you clearified it there, I understood, what you wanted and filed a PR which exactly does, what you want (and it would probably allready be merged, if dup would not have been down). And for reference, in [1] the reporter arguments, that we should add a bug, for consistency with an other bug; at least, that's my perception.

> it appears your judgement can be rather biased towards closing issues.

I found several bug reports, where I think, that they could be closed too, but where I felt, that I cannot decide upon. In most cases I wrote a question, asking for clearification, sometimes I just ignored them. But well yes, I might have made mistakes. That's normal, because I'm a human being.

[1] https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18290
[2] https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7006
[3] https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8007

On 23.12.19 16:21, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On 12/23/19 7:02 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> On 23.12.19 08:29, berni44 wrote:
>>> 22. day: 4 bugs were removed (issues 7737, 17232, 17597, 19564)
>>>
>>
>> Both of my issues you have attempted to close should not have been. Please stop the vandalism. I hope you have not been closing other issues that should have stayed open, but it appears your judgement can be rather biased towards closing issues. Probably someone should go over all the closed issues and make sure we are not losing anything of value.
> 
> I feel there is no reason to take offense

I am not offended, just a little annoyed about the demonstrated carelessness, which I feel could be easily fixed by a slight change of underlying values. Bugs are bad, bug reports are good. Make sure the set of valid reported issues is the set of open issues instead of closing as many issues as you can get away with. Basically, summarizing the work achieved as a number of removed issues gives the OP perverse incentives. Instead, he could report both reproduced issues and closed issues.

> or consider this "vandalism". 

The definition applies pretty well. Issues are valuable. This is why Walter thanks people publicly for reporting them. I am just asking the OP to be a bit more careful about dismissing other people's work on those issues as "invalid". Basically, someone actually took the time to report an issue (not everyone does!), and it is not very respectful to simply move the issue to the trash can without even reading the discussion that already took place and without using a quick Google search to validate that one's understanding of the involved terminology is accurate.

> If an issue is not touched in a long time (years even), closing it can be a valid resolution. He's closed bugs of mine from over 10 years ago, that I completely forgot about, and don't care about any more.

Ideally, issues should be closed after they are fixed, and not when the original reporter stops caring about them. I don't care deeply about each and every issue I report (I usually can find workarounds), but I report them anyway to help improve the quality of D.

> If I want them to remain open, I'll reopen. At the very least, it forces people to reconsider the issue instead of ignoring it. There is very little harm in closing and reopening an issue.
> ...

Not everyone will reopen, as some people have moved on from D or don't feel like fighting for their (potentially trivial) issues.

> I'd rather have 10 stale issues closed and one relevant one incorrectly closed (that I reopen) than leave all the stale issues.
> 
> -Steve

The amount of time I have spent defending my own bug reports does not compare at all to the amount of value provided through this effort to my own bug reports. I'm glad your experience has been different.

On Monday, 23 December 2019 at 18:10:01 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:

>> If I want them to remain open, I'll reopen. At the very least, it forces people to reconsider the issue instead of ignoring it. There is very little harm in closing and reopening an issue.
>> ...
>
> Not everyone will reopen, as some people have moved on from D or don't feel like fighting for their (potentially trivial) issues.

On the other hand, one of mine was closed, and it reminded me of why it was still open.

I'd hope that there's no need for a fight to keep an issue open unless Walter, Andrei, or Atila (or someone they've delegated this power to) has declared that it's not valid.

On 23.12.19 18:16, berni44 wrote:
> On Monday, 23 December 2019 at 12:02:39 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> Both of my issues you have attempted to close should not have been.
> 
> Actually, when I remember right, there where three issues, which I closed, because I considered them invalid (and in each of them I gave a reason, why I was doing so), which where reopened by the reporter. [1] [2] and [3]. I still consider two of them invalid, only one of them [3] is from you and maybe I got something wrong there, but as long, as I do understand this issue like I do at the moment I judge it invalid.

That judgement makes no sense, you have not backed it up with anything but your own bias, and I feel I have invested appropriate time and effort into explaining why. (But I'll try again: You can do something that's called a "signed right shift" on an unsigned value and it does not matter whether there is a sign bit or not, its definition is based purely on the bit representation. You can disagree that this terminology makes sense, but it is standard enough to be _explicitly clarified_ in the first few sentences of the Wikipedia article I linked, which for me is the first result on Google for the query "signed right shift" [1]. Why is it not disrespectful to ask me to do this Google search for you?)

If for the original reporter, the required action was indeed as simple as just reopening the issue, Steve's argumentation would make a little more sense.

> The other one from you [2] got a separate thread in this forum. After you clearified it there, I understood, what you wanted and filed a PR which exactly does, what you want (and it would probably allready be merged, if dup would not have been down).

Yes, that PR seems close enough. However, I basically spent an entire day fighting against misconceptions in that thread (which is to a large extent my own fault, of course, I cared too much). The amount of additional work that resulted for me is not nearly proportional to the impact of the PR. Thanks though; that PR _will_ have an actual impact.

> And for reference, in [1] the reporter arguments, that we should add a bug, for consistency with an other bug; at least, that's my perception.
> ...

The behavior you call "an other bug" is explicitly documented. The Phobos documentation plainly states:

https://dlang.org/library/std/conv/to.html
"* Unsigned or signed integers to strings.
[special case]
Convert integral value to string in radix radix. radix must be a value from 2 to 36. value is treated as a signed value only if radix is 10. The characters A through Z are used to represent values 10 through 36 and their case is determined by the letterCase parameter."

I don't know if that's the best possible design, but it makes sense for common bases like 2, 8 and 16. Certainly not a bug though.

There is no related documentation about std.conv.parse that I could find, but the fact that it doesn't consume its argument in case it starts with a "-" and (only) if the radix is not 10 is a very strong hint that it should be roundtrip-compatible.

I.e., leave that bug report open or fix the issue. There's no reason to harass the original reporter about it any further. The issue is that you didn't think to pull out the related documentation. You wanted to close a bug report about std.conv.parse without understanding the (admittedly not fully intuitive) interfaces of std.conv.to and std.conv.parse. There is no good reason for you to do this though, I think you could easily do better. It's a matter of following the right process. (E.g., once you think someone is wrong about something, try to refute your own opinion and only if you fail to do that, write your post. It helps to include a trusted third-party source that the other person can then use to refute their own opinion, but if it is the first result in a popular search engine, I think it is justifiable to be a bit grumpy about being forced to bear the burden of proof.)

>> it appears your judgement can be rather biased towards closing issues.
> 
> I found several bug reports, where I think, that they could be closed too, but where I felt, that I cannot decide upon. In most cases I wrote a question, asking for clearification, sometimes I just ignored them. But well yes, I might have made mistakes. That's normal, because I'm a human being.
> ...

So am I, but whether you are human or not is not a particularly important parameter. If you are _fallible_, there's typically a trade-off between time invested and number of mistakes. Valid bug reports have high positive value and invalid ones are only slightly negative. Therefore, it pays to be careful about what you close.

If you have a team of people working on something (particularly code or research), and different people apply different amounts of care, there is bound to be a certain amount of conflict about it, and if careless people don't adapt, the careful ones eventually leave or burn out. I am not the bad guy here, and I think your intentions are good as well. I'm just telling you how to be more effective at transforming your labor into actual value. Andrei wrote a related post some time ago, though it is not a perfect fit [2].

> [1] https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18290
> [2] https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7006
> [3] https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8007
> 
> 

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arithmetic_shift
[2] https://forum.dlang.org/thread/q6plhj$1l9$1@digitalmars.com?page=15

On Monday, 23 December 2019 at 12:02:39 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 23.12.19 08:29, berni44 wrote:
>> 22. day: 4 bugs were removed (issues 7737, 17232, 17597, 19564)
>> 
>
> Both of my issues you have attempted to close should not have been. Please stop the vandalism. I hope you have not been closing other issues that should have stayed open, but it appears your judgement can be rather biased towards closing issues. Probably someone should go over all the closed issues and make sure we are not losing anything of value.

Nobody maintains the issue tracker to begin with for regular use, why do you expect someone to go do something extra like looking through all the closed issues.

23. day: 10 bugs were removed (issues 9681, 15028, 15382, 15670, 16670, 19325, 19450, 19736, 20259, 20436)

Real fixes:
Issue 19325 - The 'body' keyword is still not deprecated

24. day: 6 bugs were removed (issues 7519, 9471, 13607, 15841, 17310, 18110)

Thanks to everyone who helped. :-)

Some statistics:

phobos:     87
dmd:        35
dlang.org:  32
druntime:    6
installer:   1
--------------
total:     161

There are currently 2485 bug reports left alltogether.

In this thread, there are three bugs mentioned, which porbably could be removed quite easily: 15751, 17222, 19454. As they are dmd bugs, where I have no experience, I will not going to fix them, but if someone else would like to do so, that would be great. :-)

On 12/25/19 3:30 AM, berni44 wrote:
> 24. day: 6 bugs were removed (issues 7519, 9471, 13607, 15841, 17310, 18110)
> 
> Thanks to everyone who helped. :-)
> 
> Some statistics:
> 
> phobos:     87
> dmd:        35
> dlang.org:  32
> druntime:    6
> installer:   1
> --------------
> total:     161
> 
> There are currently 2485 bug reports left alltogether.
> 
> In this thread, there are three bugs mentioned, which porbably could be removed quite easily: 15751, 17222, 19454. As they are dmd bugs, where I have no experience, I will not going to fix them, but if someone else would like to do so, that would be great. :-)

Awesome work! Great Christmas present for D :)

-Steve