Bugzilla: Mass marking of "old" tickets as resolved (was: Re: Poll: Auto-closing "old" tickets)
Philippe Cloutier <[email protected]> Tue, 26 May 2026 10:34:42 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.apache.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------ZitD7O3eArSL5hMs97471CpS
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Greetings,
On 5/20/2026 10:58 AM, Philippe Cloutier wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> On 5/6/2026 12:32 PM, Bowen, Rich wrote:
>> After some chat on Slack, I wanted to have a poll here on the idea of
>> closing “old” tickets, for various definitions of old. The Slack
>> conversation was in favor, but as that is a small subset of the
>> entire project, I’m hoping to get a broader consensus here. There are
>> several questions:
>>
>>
>> 1) Do you want to auto-close tickets that are filed against 2.0?
>> (Data: There’s only 19 of them. The newest of these is from 2009.
>> https://httpd.rcbowen.com/httpd-20x-open-bugs.html)
>
>
> What do you mean by "closing tickets"?
If I understand correctly, the proposal was a one-time mass manipulation
of the tickets, which has now been done
(https://lists.apache.org/thread/jgzgq99vo347yhfwfojtzh8vj2xfzp2t).
Currently, the following query approximates affected tickets:
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&bug_status=NEEDINFO&bug_status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=CLOSED&f1=days_elapsed&f2=days_elapsed&list_id=224983&o1=lessthan&o2=greaterthan&order=Importance&product=Apache%20httpd-2&query_format=advanced&v1=18&v2=16
This query relies on 2 parameters focusing on 2026-05-09 which need to
be adjusted as days pass, currently set to 18 and 16.
Based on an analysis of a small sample
(https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39913 and
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20036), I infer the
modifications done were:
1. Marking issues as resolved
2. Setting RESOLUTION to WONTFIX
3. Adding a comment
In the above cases, the comment was:
> Thank you for your report. Apache httpd 2.2.x reached end-of-life in December 2017 and is no longer supported. If this issue still affects Apache httpd 2.4.x or trunk, please open a new ticket. We are closing this ticket as the affected version is no longer maintained.
This makes no sense to me:
1. I see nothing which suggests these issues are indeed resolved.
2. I see no reason why these bugs would not be fixed.
3. The issues are reported against httpd 2, which remains supported,
not specifically against 2.2.
4. Filing a new ticket for an issue already tracked is (generally) a
Bad Idea™.
5. I see no reason to assume a single version is affected.
If the above accurately reflects the proposal, my answer is negative in
all cases. Perhaps something should be done about case #3, but again
certainly not marking all of these as resolved, and not without care
(see INFRA-27948 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-27948>).
>
>
>> […]
>>
>> The goal here is to make our ticket backlog less daunting, and more
>> appealing to contributors who want to pick meaningful stuff to work on.
I feel like this makes my personal backlog more daunting, and doubt it
could be different for others. I recommend to revert that.
--
🅭🄍:https://www.philippecloutier.com/Common+infrastructure+licensing#list
Philippe Cloutier
--------------ZitD7O3eArSL5hMs97471CpS
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Greetings,</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/20/2026 10:58 AM, Philippe
Cloutier wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:[email protected]">Greetings,
<br>
<br>
On 5/6/2026 12:32 PM, Bowen, Rich wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">After some chat on Slack, I wanted to have
a poll here on the idea of closing “old” tickets, for various
definitions of old. The Slack conversation was in favor, but as
that is a small subset of the entire project, I’m hoping to get
a broader consensus here. There are several questions:
<br>
<br>
<br>
1) Do you want to auto-close tickets that are filed against 2.0?
(Data: There’s only 19 of them. The newest of these is from
2009. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://httpd.rcbowen.com/httpd-20x-open-bugs.html">https://httpd.rcbowen.com/httpd-20x-open-bugs.html</a>)
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
What do you mean by "closing tickets"? <br>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>If I understand correctly, the proposal was a one-time mass
manipulation of the tickets, which has now been done
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.apache.org/thread/jgzgq99vo347yhfwfojtzh8vj2xfzp2t">https://lists.apache.org/thread/jgzgq99vo347yhfwfojtzh8vj2xfzp2t</a>).</p>
<p>Currently, the following query approximates affected tickets:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&bug_status=NEEDINFO&bug_status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=CLOSED&f1=days_elapsed&f2=days_elapsed&list_id=224983&o1=lessthan&o2=greaterthan&order=Importance&product=Apache%20httpd-2&query_format=advanced&v1=18&v2=16">https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&bug_status=NEEDINFO&bug_status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=CLOSED&f1=days_elapsed&f2=days_elapsed&list_id=224983&o1=lessthan&o2=greaterthan&order=Importance&a
mp;product=Apache%20httpd-2&query_format=advanced&v1=18&v2=16</a><br>
This query relies on 2 parameters focusing on 2026-05-09 which
need to be adjusted as days pass, currently set to 18 and 16.</p>
<p>Based on an analysis of a small sample
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39913">https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39913</a> and
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20036">https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20036</a>), I infer the
modifications done were:</p>
<ol>
<li>Marking issues as resolved</li>
<li>Setting RESOLUTION to WONTFIX</li>
<li>Adding a comment</li>
</ol>
<p>In the above cases, the comment was:</p>
<pre class="bz_comment_text" id="comment_text_8"><blockquote
type="cite"><pre class="bz_comment_text" id="comment_text_8">Thank you for your report. Apache httpd 2.2.x reached end-of-life in December 2017 and is no longer supported. If this issue still affects Apache httpd 2.4.x or trunk, please open a new ticket. We are closing this ticket as the affected version is no longer maintained.</pre>
</blockquote>
This makes no sense to me:
</pre>
<ol>
<li>I see nothing which suggests these issues are indeed resolved.</li>
<li>I see no reason why these bugs would not be fixed.</li>
<li>The issues are reported against httpd 2, which remains
supported, not specifically against 2.2.</li>
<li>Filing a new ticket for an issue already tracked is
(generally) a Bad Idea™.</li>
<li>I see no reason to assume a single version is affected.</li>
</ol>
<p>If the above accurately reflects the proposal, my answer is
negative in all cases. Perhaps something should be done about case
#3, but again certainly not marking all of these as resolved, and
not without care (see <a class="issue-link"
data-issue-key="INFRA-27948"
href="https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-27948"
id="key-val" rel="13651937">INFRA-27948</a>).</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:[email protected]"><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">[…]
<br>
<br>
The goal here is to make our ticket backlog less daunting, and
more appealing to contributors who want to pick meaningful stuff
to work on. <br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>I feel like this makes my personal backlog more daunting, and
doubt it could be different for others. I recommend to revert
that.</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
🅭🄍: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.philippecloutier.com/Common+infrastructure+licensing#list">https://www.philippecloutier.com/Common+infrastructure+licensing#list</a>
Philippe Cloutier</pre>
</body>
</html>
--------------ZitD7O3eArSL5hMs97471CpS--