I just made a pass through https://issues.dlang.org for a cleanup. It used to have many small projects that were of low traffic yet enjoyed the same visibility as the main ones. So I took the following actions:

* Consolidated all small tools (obj2asm, optlink, etc) under "tools".

* Consolidated all D2.x versions under D2.

* Consolidated D1 & D2 issues under D2.

* Retired D1. It's closed for new submissions.

* Kept the following projects: dlang.org, dmd, druntime, installer, phobos, tools, and visuald. The respective github page is linked in each project description.

The intent of these changes should simplify and defragment navigating the issues list and entering issues.


Enjoy!

Andrei

On 09/06/2015 06:33, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
<snip>
> * Consolidated D1 & D2 issues under D2.

It appears that you've changed everything to D2 indiscriminately, including issues that have nothing to do with the D language or compiler, let alone D2 (e.g. issues with the Bugzilla installation, and issues with Dstress, which IIRC was never updated to D2).

If we effectively aren't using the Version field anymore, we ought to do away with it. I'm guessing there's a way to remove this field from the interface, but I don't know.  If we're keeping it, we really should have either some kind of 'N/A' option for issues that aren't about the D language or compiler, or versions in the list for these other tools as well.

> * Retired D1. It's closed for new submissions.
<snip>

What has happened to those bugs that were applicable to D1 only - either specific to D1 in the first place or fixed in D2 but not in D1?

Stewart.

-- 
My email address is valid but not my primary mailbox and not checked regularly.  Please keep replies on the 'group where everybody may benefit.

2015-06-09 13:20 GMT+02:00 Stewart Gordon via Digitalmars-d-announce < digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com>:

>
>  * Retired D1. It's closed for new submissions.
>>
> <snip>
>
> What has happened to those bugs that were applicable to D1 only - either specific to D1 in the first place or fixed in D2 but not in D1?
>
> Stewart.
>
> --
> My email address is valid but not my primary mailbox and not checked regularly.  Please keep replies on the 'group where everybody may benefit.
>

They are still here, but apparently you can tag any new D1 issue, see for example: https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12634 (they also still show up in the search).

On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 05:33:24 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> * Consolidated all small tools (obj2asm, optlink, etc) under "tools".

I'm not sure about this change. I think there should be a separate component for the tools in our tools/ repo, and for the DigitalMars tools which only Walter Bright can effectively fix (OPTLINK, obj2asm, implib, coffimplib, etc.). It also doesn't align with:

> The respective github page is linked in each project description.

On 6/9/15 5:39 AM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
> On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 05:33:24 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> * Consolidated all small tools (obj2asm, optlink, etc) under "tools".
>
> I'm not sure about this change. I think there should be a separate
> component for the tools in our tools/ repo, and for the DigitalMars
> tools which only Walter Bright can effectively fix (OPTLINK, obj2asm,
> implib, coffimplib, etc.). It also doesn't align with:
>
>> The respective github page is linked in each project description.

The decision stands. Too many obscure choices presented with equal importance is just a bad user experience. Right now people can choose quickly and easily from seven categories. I've actually considered folding visuald into tools, but I'll leave it alone for now. -- Andrei

On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 19:15:41 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> The decision stands. Too many obscure choices presented with equal importance is just a bad user experience. Right now people can choose quickly and easily from seven categories. I've actually considered folding visuald into tools, but I'll leave it alone for now. -- Andrei

OK, please update the description of the tools component in that case to mention that it also includes the DM tools.

On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 19:15:41 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> The decision stands. Too many obscure choices presented with equal importance is just a bad user experience.

There is more to this than just user experience.

If you go to file a bug in a large mature project, for example KDE or Firefox, you'll see that their Bugzilla instances have myriads of projects, components and subcomponents. There is actually an important reason for this: each component can have a maintainer, who will be notified and automatically assigned to the bug. If a maintainer resigns, his components can be divided among others.

I have long thought that we should encourage "ownership" of parts of Phobos (and the project as a whole). For example, I'm interested in receiving bug reports and reviewing PRs concerning std.file and std.process (but not e.g. std.algorithm). Bugzilla has the capability of automatically choosing an assignee for the respective component, we would just need to configure it.

Getting past contributors involved is one way we can fight lack of PR reviews. The new subscription feature of forum.dlang.org is another step towards this, but I have a few more things planned to bring this idea in full force.

On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 05:33:24 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> I just made a pass through https://issues.dlang.org for a cleanup.

Next time we do something like this, we need to find a way to do this without sending thousands of emails to damn near everyone who's ever reported a bug :P

http://forum.dlang.org/post/hatvzzpgmsbtgkfbwlxj@forum.dlang.org

[vladde] Could someone explain to me why DFeed is spamming that Andrei has replied to something, but the links only go to issues filed 7 to 5 years ago?
[vladde] This is getting quite annoying actually

[Dr_Jakob] Wtf have they done with the bugs?

[ladyfriday] I unchecked all the boxes on bugzilla for email, and I'm still getting all these bloody notifications emailed to me every couple of minutes >.>
[ladyfriday] got woken up by them, and they've been going all day
[ladyfriday] can't even unsubscribe

On 6/9/15 1:54 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
> On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 05:33:24 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> I just made a pass through https://issues.dlang.org for a cleanup.
>
> Next time we do something like this, we need to find a way to do this
> without sending thousands of emails to damn near everyone who's ever
> reported a bug :P
>
> http://forum.dlang.org/post/hatvzzpgmsbtgkfbwlxj@forum.dlang.org
>
> [vladde] Could someone explain to me why DFeed is spamming that Andrei
> has replied to something, but the links only go to issues filed 7 to 5
> years ago?
> [vladde] This is getting quite annoying actually
>
> [Dr_Jakob] Wtf have they done with the bugs?
>
> [ladyfriday] I unchecked all the boxes on bugzilla for email, and I'm
> still getting all these bloody notifications emailed to me every couple
> of minutes >.>
> [ladyfriday] got woken up by them, and they've been going all day
> [ladyfriday] can't even unsubscribe

That's pretty messed up of bugzilla, apologies to whomever is seeing this. I've used "change several issues at once", which I implicitly assumed would entail grouping email just the same.


Andrei

On 6/9/15 12:33 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
> On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 19:15:41 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> The decision stands. Too many obscure choices presented with equal
>> importance is just a bad user experience.
>
> There is more to this than just user experience.
>
> If you go to file a bug in a large mature project, for example KDE or
> Firefox, you'll see that their Bugzilla instances have myriads of
> projects, components and subcomponents. There is actually an important
> reason for this: each component can have a maintainer, who will be
> notified and automatically assigned to the bug. If a maintainer resigns,
> his components can be divided among others.

A good point to keep in mind for the future. Until now we had a fragmentation that served nobody and was a net negative. Culling that is an improvement.

> I have long thought that we should encourage "ownership" of parts of
> Phobos (and the project as a whole). For example, I'm interested in
> receiving bug reports and reviewing PRs concerning std.file and
> std.process (but not e.g. std.algorithm). Bugzilla has the capability of
> automatically choosing an assignee for the respective component, we
> would just need to configure it.

I think that's awesome. I'd say let's chunk Phobos into subcomponents once we have, say, five folks who want to chip in. For now we just need an ombudsman to dispatch all Phobos issues to... well, to the up to four folks who will sign up until that :o).


Andrei