So I've been thinking about helping out with fixing some bugs in dmd. I made search in the bug tracker for bugs with NEW state but quickly noticed that a lot of them are actually already being worked on or have a pending pull request.

It would be great if the state was changed to ASSIGNED. It would also make the stats a bit nicer to look at I guess.

I don't have the solution to this problem... just a rant :)

/Jonas

"jdrewsen" <jdrewsen@nospam.com> wrote in message news:ybillabaoehmexgjosvc@dfeed.kimsufi.thecybershadow.net...
>
> So I've been thinking about helping out with fixing some bugs in dmd. I made search in the bug tracker for bugs with NEW state but quickly noticed that a lot of them are actually already being worked on or have a pending pull request.
>
> It would be great if the state was changed to ASSIGNED. It would also make the stats a bit nicer to look at I guess.
>
> I don't have the solution to this problem... just a rant :)
>

If you're still looking for DMD bugs to work on, I've got a few I can [selfishly] suggest :)

On Friday, 20 January 2012 at 22:42:59 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "jdrewsen" <jdrewsen@nospam.com> wrote in message news:ybillabaoehmexgjosvc@dfeed.kimsufi.thecybershadow.net...
>>
>> So I've been thinking about helping out with fixing some bugs in dmd. I made search in the bug tracker for bugs with NEW state but quickly noticed that a lot of them are actually already being worked on or have a pending pull request.
>>
>> It would be great if the state was changed to ASSIGNED. It would also make the stats a bit nicer to look at I guess.
>>
>> I don't have the solution to this problem... just a rant :)
>>
>
> If you're still looking for DMD bugs to work on, I've got a few I can [selfishly] suggest :)

Yes still looking. But I'm just starting to dig into the dmd source so I guess it shouldn't be the tough bugs to start with.

"jdrewsen" <jdrewsen@nospam.com> wrote in message news:wosqwyhggkzugyfpqjri@dfeed.kimsufi.thecybershadow.net...
> On Friday, 20 January 2012 at 22:42:59 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> "jdrewsen" <jdrewsen@nospam.com> wrote in message news:ybillabaoehmexgjosvc@dfeed.kimsufi.thecybershadow.net...
>>>
>>> So I've been thinking about helping out with fixing some bugs in dmd. I made search in the bug tracker for bugs with NEW state but quickly noticed that a lot of them are actually already being worked on or have a pending pull request.
>>>
>>> It would be great if the state was changed to ASSIGNED. It would also make the stats a bit nicer to look at I guess.
>>>
>>> I don't have the solution to this problem... just a rant :)
>>>
>>
>> If you're still looking for DMD bugs to work on, I've got a few I can [selfishly] suggest :)
>
> Yes still looking. But I'm just starting to dig into the dmd source so I guess it shouldn't be the tough bugs to start with.
>

I have no idea what bugs would be easy or hard, but these are some of my pains that AFAIK no one's working on:

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6969
That's the #1 biggest PITA for me, it's blocking a major refactoring I want
to do asap. I think I figured out something related to the problem (it's in
the bug report), but I have no idea if it's actually a proper solution or
not (probably not). The only other thing I'd be able to do at this point is
run the test suite and probably watch of bunch of stuff break ;)

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=846 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6983 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7277 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6397

Not sure if these UFCS issues have been worked on or not: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2883 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4525

On 1/20/2012 3:12 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "jdrewsen" <jdrewsen@nospam.com> wrote in message news:wosqwyhggkzugyfpqjri@dfeed.kimsufi.thecybershadow.net...
>> On Friday, 20 January 2012 at 22:42:59 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>> "jdrewsen" <jdrewsen@nospam.com> wrote in message news:ybillabaoehmexgjosvc@dfeed.kimsufi.thecybershadow.net...
>>>>
>>>> So I've been thinking about helping out with fixing some bugs in dmd. I made search in the bug tracker for bugs with NEW state but quickly noticed that a lot of them are actually already being worked on or have a pending pull request.
>>>>
>>>> It would be great if the state was changed to ASSIGNED. It would also make the stats a bit nicer to look at I guess.
>>>>
>>>> I don't have the solution to this problem... just a rant :)
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you're still looking for DMD bugs to work on, I've got a few I can [selfishly] suggest :)
>>
>> Yes still looking. But I'm just starting to dig into the dmd source so I guess it shouldn't be the tough bugs to start with.
>>
> 
> I have no idea what bugs would be easy or hard, but these are some of my pains that AFAIK no one's working on:
> 
> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6969
> That's the #1 biggest PITA for me, it's blocking a major refactoring I want
> to do asap. I think I figured out something related to the problem (it's in
> the bug report), but I have no idea if it's actually a proper solution or
> not (probably not). The only other thing I'd be able to do at this point is
> run the test suite and probably watch of bunch of stuff break ;)
> 
> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=846 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6983 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7277 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6397
> 
> Not sure if these UFCS issues have been worked on or not: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2883 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4525
> 

To be more general than paying attention to Nick's specific issues.. paying attention to the various attributes that are available:  priority, severity, and vote count.  Each of those is easy to search on and sort by.

I fully agree with the difficulty of seeing who's working on what when no one bothers to assign bugs to themselves.

"Brad Roberts" <braddr@puremagic.com> wrote in message news:mailman.637.1327101984.16222.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
>
> To be more general than paying attention to Nick's specific issues..
> paying attention to the various attributes that are
> available:  priority, severity, and vote count.  Each of those is easy to
> search on and sort by.
>

Yup, that's probably technically better (shucks!) ;)

On 20/01/2012 5:26 PM, Brad Roberts wrote:
> To be more general than paying attention to Nick's specific issues.. paying attention to the various attributes that are
> available:  priority, severity, and vote count.  Each of those is easy to search on and sort by.
>
> I fully agree with the difficulty of seeing who's working on what when no one bothers to assign bugs to themselves.

I'm guessing it's not possible to make it so that when a pull request is received that fixes a bug (in the way that the newly integrated approach works for commits) it automatically assigns the issue to the user?

On 1/20/2012 8:33 PM, Kapps wrote:
> On 20/01/2012 5:26 PM, Brad Roberts wrote:
>> To be more general than paying attention to Nick's specific issues.. paying attention to the various attributes that are available:  priority, severity, and vote count.  Each of those is easy to search on and sort by.
>>
>> I fully agree with the difficulty of seeing who's working on what when no one bothers to assign bugs to themselves.
> 
> I'm guessing it's not possible to make it so that when a pull request is received that fixes a bug (in the way that the newly integrated approach works for commits) it automatically assigns the issue to the user?

With sufficient time and energy, it's all possible.  There's sufficient hooks to write the software.  But waiting for the pull request to mark the bug as assigned is too late, imho.  I don't see it as at all unreasonable to ask people that decide to work on a bug to assign it to themselves.  It only takes a couple button clicks and they'll already have the bug open.

On 21.01.2012 05:42, Brad Roberts wrote:
> On 1/20/2012 8:33 PM, Kapps wrote:
>> On 20/01/2012 5:26 PM, Brad Roberts wrote:
>>> To be more general than paying attention to Nick's specific issues.. paying attention to the various attributes that are
>>> available:  priority, severity, and vote count.  Each of those is easy to search on and sort by.
>>>
>>> I fully agree with the difficulty of seeing who's working on what when no one bothers to assign bugs to themselves.
>>
>> I'm guessing it's not possible to make it so that when a pull request is received that fixes a bug (in the way that the
>> newly integrated approach works for commits) it automatically assigns the issue to the user?
>
> With sufficient time and energy, it's all possible.  There's sufficient hooks to write the software.  But waiting for
> the pull request to mark the bug as assigned is too late, imho.  I don't see it as at all unreasonable to ask people
> that decide to work on a bug to assign it to themselves.  It only takes a couple button clicks and they'll already have
> the bug open.

It's not true of me -- I'm nearly always off-line while I'm working on bugs. That might not be true of anyone else, though, and since at the moment all CTFE are implicitly assigned to me, it's not really a problem right now.
Anyway, if we want to make ASSIGNED meaningful, a mandatory first step would be change all bugs below number 1000 back to NEW.

On 1/21/2012 1:07 AM, Don wrote:
> On 21.01.2012 05:42, Brad Roberts wrote:
>> On 1/20/2012 8:33 PM, Kapps wrote:
>>> On 20/01/2012 5:26 PM, Brad Roberts wrote:
>>>> To be more general than paying attention to Nick's specific issues.. paying attention to the various attributes that
>>>> are
>>>> available:  priority, severity, and vote count.  Each of those is easy to search on and sort by.
>>>>
>>>> I fully agree with the difficulty of seeing who's working on what when no one bothers to assign bugs to themselves.
>>>
>>> I'm guessing it's not possible to make it so that when a pull request is received that fixes a bug (in the way that the newly integrated approach works for commits) it automatically assigns the issue to the user?
>>
>> With sufficient time and energy, it's all possible.  There's sufficient hooks to write the software.  But waiting for the pull request to mark the bug as assigned is too late, imho.  I don't see it as at all unreasonable to ask people that decide to work on a bug to assign it to themselves.  It only takes a couple button clicks and they'll already have the bug open.
> 
> It's not true of me -- I'm nearly always off-line while I'm working on bugs. That might not be true of anyone else,
> though, and since at the moment all CTFE are implicitly assigned to me, it's not really a problem right now.
> Anyway, if we want to make ASSIGNED meaningful, a mandatory first step would be change all bugs below number 1000 back
> to NEW.

Can you assign some to yourself before dropping off-line?  Either way, it's one of those things that's useful to do, but not a requirement (obviously).  Given the number of bugs, the chances of duplication of effort is relatively low.

Doing some mass-reassignments is pretty easy.  I can either do them under the covers directly in the db or via the mass-edit features of bugzilla (the better choice since they result in a clearer audit trail).

Looking at the sub-1000 bugs that are still open:
  ASSIGNED  43
  NEW       46
  REOPENED  17

A couple of those are assigned to non-bugzilla@digitalmars.com addresses.

mysql> select login_name, bug_status, count(*) from bugs, profiles where bugs.assigned_to = profiles.userid and
bug_status in ("ASSIGNED", "NEW", "REOPENED") and bug_id < 1000 group by login_name, bug_status;
+--------------------------+------------+----------+
| login_name               | bug_status | count(*) |
+--------------------------+------------+----------+
| bugzilla@digitalmars.com | ASSIGNED   |       42 |
| bugzilla@digitalmars.com | NEW        |       11 |
| bugzilla@digitalmars.com | REOPENED   |       13 |
| ibuclaw@ubuntu.com       | NEW        |        1 |
| ibuclaw@ubuntu.com       | REOPENED   |        1 |
| nobody@puremagic.com     | NEW        |       32 |
| nobody@puremagic.com     | REOPENED   |        2 |
| sean@invisibleduck.org   | ASSIGNED   |        1 |
| sean@invisibleduck.org   | REOPENED   |        1 |
| smjg@iname.com           | NEW        |        2 |
+--------------------------+------------+----------+

Or for the full db:

mysql> select login_name, bug_status, count(*) from bugs, profiles where bugs.assigned_to = profiles.userid and
bug_status in ("ASSIGNED", "NEW", "REOPENED") group by login_name, bug_status;
+--------------------------+------------+----------+
| login_name               | bug_status | count(*) |
+--------------------------+------------+----------+
| andrei@metalanguage.com  | ASSIGNED   |      133 |
| andrei@metalanguage.com  | NEW        |        5 |
| andrei@metalanguage.com  | REOPENED   |        2 |
| braddr@puremagic.com     | ASSIGNED   |        1 |
| braddr@puremagic.com     | NEW        |        3 |
| bugzilla@digitalmars.com | ASSIGNED   |       48 |
| bugzilla@digitalmars.com | NEW        |       62 |
| bugzilla@digitalmars.com | REOPENED   |       34 |
| dawg@dawgfoto.de         | NEW        |        1 |
| dmitry.olsh@gmail.com    | ASSIGNED   |        3 |
| dsimcha@yahoo.com        | ASSIGNED   |        1 |
| dvdfrdmn@users.sf.net    | NEW        |        1 |
| ibuclaw@ubuntu.com       | ASSIGNED   |        1 |
| ibuclaw@ubuntu.com       | NEW        |       17 |
| ibuclaw@ubuntu.com       | REOPENED   |        1 |
| nobody@puremagic.com     | ASSIGNED   |       23 |
| nobody@puremagic.com     | NEW        |     2187 |
| nobody@puremagic.com     | REOPENED   |       74 |
| rsinfu@gmail.com         | ASSIGNED   |        2 |
| schveiguy@yahoo.com      | ASSIGNED   |        3 |
| sean@invisibleduck.org   | ASSIGNED   |        8 |
| sean@invisibleduck.org   | NEW        |       42 |
| sean@invisibleduck.org   | REOPENED   |        1 |
| smjg@iname.com           | NEW        |        2 |
| yebblies@gmail.com       | ASSIGNED   |        1 |
+--------------------------+------------+----------+