Le 31/10/2018 à 21:52, William A Rowe
Jr a écrit :
There are 715 reports tagged 2.0.0 through
2.3-HEAD of Status NEW
or NEEDINFO with no Resolution.
For these bugs I believe we should simply close them with
a message that this is a mass-update, that the version is
beyond EOL, and a request for reporters/observers to retest
and reopen with the supported version number if they are
still reproducible using a modern 2.4.x version. But I can't
determine the best Status/Resolution code... suggestions?
IMHO, the best status would be CLOSED/WONTFIX. Maybe a new Keyword
such as TooOldAndInactive to ease finding such mass-update?
Or ask for a new status TOO_OLD (but I'm not sure it would really be
+1, after by-hand review, as proposed.
There are 69 bugs of status REOPENED, and 20 of status
ASSIGNED (?). These should likely be reviewed by hand and
either ACCEPTED against 2.4-HEAD, tagged NEEDINFO with a
request to re-review (after mass-cleanup of NEEDINFO above),
or closed as above with an invitation to retest and reopen.
There are 255 bugs of Status NEW from 2.4.1-2.4.17,
releases which are over three years old. For these, the best
resolution is probably NEEDINFO.
Not sure NEEDINFO is fine for these ones. We should set NEEDINFO
after by hand review, if we NEEDINFO. Or close it if invalid, or
leave it as is if it looks right but no one has looked at it.
The reporter has done his job. He has reported what he thinks is
enough. WE should provide an answer or ask for more details.
+1 if older than, let say, 1 year?
And there are 38 2.4.x NEEDINFO bugs, most of which can
likely be closed for good as INVALID under a manual review.
The number is small, they could also be doubled check by hand. But
is is likely, that it would end as INVALID because the analysis has
already been done, and the reporter does not seem to be interested
[...]. This is a mass update of old and inactive reports [...]
I'm thinking of generic comment which would read (2nd
paragraph for 2.0-2.3.x only);
Please help us to refine our list of open and current
defects. This is a mass update of older Bugzilla reports
which reflect user error, already resolved defects, and
still-existing defects in httpd.
[...] a defect in httpd or a feature request [...]
repeatedly announced, the Apache HTTP Server Project has
discontinued all development and patch review of the 2.2.x
series of releases. The final release 2.2.34 was published
in July 2017, and no further evaluation of bug reports or
security risks will be considered or published for 2.2.x
If your report represented a question or confusion about
how to use an httpd feature, an unexpected server behavior,
problems building or installing httpd, or working with an
external component (a third party module, browser etc.) we
ask you to start by bringing your question to the User
Support and Discussion mailing list, see [https://httpd.apache.org/lists.html#http-users
for details. Include a link to this Bugzilla report for
completeness with your question.
If your report was clearly a defect in httpd, we ask that
you retest using a modern httpd release (2.4.33 or later)
released in the past year. If it can be reproduced, please
reopen this bug and change the Version field above to the
httpd version you have reconfirmed with.
Your help in identifying only current defects in the
httpd server software is greatly appreciated.
Comments, suggestions and other feedback before we
proceed to take a broad scythe to the stale reports?
We should also forbid bug report against 2.2.x.