www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Advent of bugfixes

reply berni44 <dlang d-ecke.de> writes:
It's sort of an advent calendar. And it's an experiment.

In an effort to do some cleaning on bugzilla, I'll try to remove 
at least one bugreport every day during advent. And I would be 
happy if some of you would like to join this effort. :-)

It's a little bit more about these bugs, that aren't really bugs: 
Bugreports, that are allready fixed but still open, invalids, 
obvious wontfixes, enhancements that are wrongly marked as bugs 
and bugs that belong to a different component. In most cases, 
fixing these is simple but helps to do some cleanup on bugzilla.

Next to these, there are the real bugs (reported or not). While 
it is wonderful if they are removed, for the sake of the advent 
calender they are a little bit difficult, because fixing them 
requires a review process which will take some days and might 
even end up in not being accepted at all. Anyway, such fixes are 
welcome too, of course.

I've set up a cron job, which collects the removed bugreports 
once a day (only bugzilla), so I can post the advances here every 
day. (Currently there are 2601 bugreports counted.)
Nov 29 2019
next sibling parent reply matheus <matheus gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 29 November 2019 at 09:14:42 UTC, berni44 wrote:

 It's sort of an advent calendar. And it's an experiment.

 In an effort to do some cleaning on bugzilla, I'll try to 
 remove at least one bugreport every day during advent. And I 
 would be happy if some of you would like to join this effort. 
 :-)


I'd like to say that you are doing a nice work.

By the way it could be nice if it was possible to rank these 
efforts.

Matheus.
Nov 29 2019
parent reply berni44 <dlang d-ecke.de> writes:
On Friday, 29 November 2019 at 13:47:41 UTC, matheus wrote:

 By the way it could be nice if it was possible to rank these 
 efforts.


I fear, I do not understand. What do you mean with "ranking 
efforts"?
Nov 29 2019
parent reply matheus <matheus gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 29 November 2019 at 18:22:10 UTC, berni44 wrote:

 On Friday, 29 November 2019 at 13:47:41 UTC, matheus wrote:

 By the way it could be nice if it was possible to rank these 
 efforts.


 I fear, I do not understand. What do you mean with "ranking 
 efforts"?


I think it would be nice to have some graph showing something 
like Devs x Pull Requests.

And in some cases compensate people like you doing such work (If 
they want).

By the way this graph could stimulate more people.

Matheus.
Nov 29 2019
parent berni44 <dlang d-ecke.de> writes:
On Friday, 29 November 2019 at 19:26:11 UTC, matheus wrote:

 I think it would be nice to have some graph showing something 
 like Devs x Pull Requests.


It's probably not the graph you meant, but I've got prepared some 
graphs (counting bugs in bugzilla over time) [1]. I was not able 
to produce these graphs with bugzilla, as I could not get rid of 
enhancements (which I do not consider bugs). So I wrote some 
script, which queried the history of all bugs and produced this 
output. From 1st of December on, a cron job counts the daily 
numbers and updates the graphs.

[1] http://www.d-ecke.de/Bugstats/
Dec 03 2019
prev sibling next sibling parent "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> writes:
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 09:14:42AM +0000, berni44 via Digitalmars-d wrote:
[...]

Just wanted to say, you're doing an awesome work to keep the bug list
under control.  That's what I used to help out with as well, before I
became too busy to regularly contribute.  Hope you can keep it up, and
more importantly, inspire others to follow suit!


T

-- 
Just because you survived after you did it, doesn't mean it wasn't stupid!
Nov 29 2019
prev sibling parent reply berni44 <dlang d-ecke.de> writes:
1. advent: 4 bugs where removed (issues 15489, 19105, 20054, 
20354)
Dec 02 2019
parent reply berni44 <dlang d-ecke.de> writes:
2. advent: 5 bugs where removed (issues 5650, 7619, 16161, 17577, 
19560)
Dec 02 2019
next sibling parent David Gileadi <gileadisNOSPM gmail.com> writes:
On 12/2/19 10:41 PM, berni44 wrote:

 2. advent: 5 bugs where removed (issues 5650, 7619, 16161, 17577, 19560)


Thank you for keeping up this work!
Dec 03 2019
prev sibling parent reply berni44 <dlang d-ecke.de> writes:
3. advent: 3 bugs where removed (issues 15881, 18556, 20258)
Dec 03 2019
next sibling parent reply FeepingCreature <feepingcreature gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 4 December 2019 at 05:53:07 UTC, berni44 wrote:

 3. advent


Very minor nitpick, but just for information's sake: the days of 
advent are the sundays before Christmas. Ie. third of advent is 
the 15th. I initally thought you were doing 'days of Christmas', 
but that's the days *after* Christmas, ie. until New Year. I 
think there's no better word for your numbering than days of 
December, which sadly doesn't sound very seasonal... ;)
Dec 04 2019
next sibling parent Basile B. <b2.temp gmx.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 4 December 2019 at 08:56:47 UTC, FeepingCreature 
wrote:

 On Wednesday, 4 December 2019 at 05:53:07 UTC, berni44 wrote:

 3. advent


 Very minor nitpick, but just for information's sake: the days 
 of advent are the sundays before Christmas. Ie. third of advent 
 is the 15th. I initally thought you were doing 'days of 
 Christmas', but that's the days *after* Christmas, ie. until 
 New Year. I think there's no better word for your numbering 
 than days of December, which sadly doesn't sound very 
 seasonal... ;)


Christians in my area usually have a kind of crown made of pine 
with 4 candles on it and they light a new candle each Sunday 
before xmass. So basically the last Sunday before xmass you have 
4 candles lightened, in case you still don't get how this works.
Dec 04 2019
prev sibling next sibling parent reply FogD <hosszu outlook.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 4 December 2019 at 08:56:47 UTC, FeepingCreature 
wrote:

 On Wednesday, 4 December 2019 at 05:53:07 UTC, berni44 wrote:

 3. advent


 Very minor nitpick, but just for information's sake: the days 
 of advent are the sundays before Christmas. Ie. third of advent 
 is the 15th. I initally thought you were doing 'days of 
 Christmas', but that's the days *after* Christmas, ie. until 
 New Year. I think there's no better word for your numbering 
 than days of December, which sadly doesn't sound very 
 seasonal... ;)


I wouldn't like to start a religion debate but Advent is the whole
season beginning with the fourth Sunday before Christmas (or with
the sixth in some rites) [1] and the Advent calendar itself isn't
a newfangled thing either [2].

So Advent of bugfixes seems to be theologically correct. :)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advent
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advent_calendar
Dec 04 2019
parent FeepingCreature <feepingcreature gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 4 December 2019 at 10:33:27 UTC, FogD wrote:

 I wouldn't like to start a religion debate but Advent is the 
 whole
 season beginning with the fourth Sunday before Christmas (or 
 with
 the sixth in some rites) [1] and the Advent calendar itself 
 isn't
 a newfangled thing either [2].

 So Advent of bugfixes seems to be theologically correct. :)

 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advent
 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advent_calendar


Correct, advent is the whole timespan. But the specific syntax 
"third of advent" or "3. advent" usually refers to the third 
sunday.
Dec 04 2019
prev sibling parent reply berni44 <dlang d-ecke.de> writes:
On Wednesday, 4 December 2019 at 08:56:47 UTC, FeepingCreature 
wrote:

 On Wednesday, 4 December 2019 at 05:53:07 UTC, berni44 wrote:

 3. advent


 Very minor nitpick, but just for information's sake: the days 
 of advent are the sundays before Christmas. Ie. third of advent 
 is the 15th. I initally thought you were doing 'days of 
 Christmas', but that's the days *after* Christmas, ie. until 
 New Year. I think there's no better word for your numbering 
 than days of December, which sadly doesn't sound very 
 seasonal... ;)


What I mean is "day in an advent calendar" - there are 24 of 
them. I don't know, how to express this more clearly in 
english... Any ideas?
Dec 04 2019
parent reply Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQ=?= <ola.fosheim.grostad gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 4 December 2019 at 15:01:09 UTC, berni44 wrote:

 What I mean is "day in an advent calendar" - there are 24 of 
 them. I don't know, how to express this more clearly in 
 english... Any ideas?


Advent calendar door opening, day 1.  I guess?

Or just: day 1, day 2, day 3…

But I think everybody understood what you wrote, so… *shrug*
Dec 04 2019
parent FeepingCreature <feepingcreature gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 4 December 2019 at 15:06:09 UTC, Ola Fosheim 
Grøstad wrote:

 On Wednesday, 4 December 2019 at 15:01:09 UTC, berni44 wrote:

 What I mean is "day in an advent calendar" - there are 24 of 
 them. I don't know, how to express this more clearly in 
 english... Any ideas?


 Advent calendar door opening, day 1.  I guess?

 Or just: day 1, day 2, day 3…

 But I think everybody understood what you wrote, so… *shrug*


Yes, it was completely clear. I just wanted to point it out. 
Sorry for the mess.
Dec 04 2019
prev sibling parent reply berni44 <dlang d-ecke.de> writes:
4. day: 1 bug was removed (issue 16223)
Dec 04 2019
parent reply berni44 <dlang d-ecke.de> writes:
5. day: 2 bugs were removed (issues 15052, 16261)
Dec 05 2019
parent reply berni44 <dlang d-ecke.de> writes:
5. day: 6 bugs were removed (issues 10933, 11400, 12722, 16018, 
19733, 20396)
Dec 06 2019
parent reply berni44 <dlang d-ecke.de> writes:
7. day: 9 bugs were removed (issues 9588, 11432, 15924, 17628, 
17753, 19229, 19435, 20350, 20416)
Dec 07 2019
parent reply berni44 <dlang d-ecke.de> writes:
8. day: 6 bugs were removed (issues 11738, 13066, 18815, 20309, 
20364, 20438)
Dec 08 2019
next sibling parent reply FeepingCreature <feepingcreature gmail.com> writes:
Thank you once again for your work!

Maybe add a line for each bug with the title of the bug report, 
so people can see what got fixed?
Dec 09 2019
parent reply berni44 <dlang d-ecke.de> writes:
On Monday, 9 December 2019 at 14:17:43 UTC, FeepingCreature wrote:

 Maybe add a line for each bug with the title of the bug report, 
 so people can see what got fixed?


Most of them are of the sort "wontfix", "invalid", "allready 
fixed", "duplicate", "is enhancement and not a bug", "wrong tool" 
and so on.  I think it's not really interesting to see these 
"fixes". That's the reason why I write "removed" and not 
"fixed"...

Having said this, there have been a few real fixes:

Day 1:
Issue 19105 - Bogus recursive template expansion via 
getSymbolsByUDA
               (unfortunatley meanwhile reopened)
Issue 20054 - getSymbolsByUDA no longer works on modules
Issue 20354 - interface is not supported by CanCAS in 
core.internal.atomic

Day 4:
Issue 16223 - BigUint: undefined shift for small instantiation 
type

Day 6:
Issue 19733 - expi documentation links broken
Issue 20396 - format!"%a" leeds to wrong result for denormalized 
float

Day 7:
Issue 9588 - format prints context pointer for struct
Issue 20350 - JSONType deprecations should be undeprecated
Issue 20416 - [Regression 2.073.2] compiler complains about 
escaping reference
               in certain cases

Day 8:
Issue 20364 - [REG2.069] changing length for typeof(null)[] array 
seg faults in
               _d_arraysetlengthiT()
Issue 20438 - [Reg 2.086] GC: memory not reusable when calling 
GC.collect after GC.free

And just to make it clear: Not all of these fixes have been made 
by me (indeed I made only 3 of these real ones) - I count *all* 
changes, looking at this as some sort of a community afford.
Dec 09 2019
parent reply Dominikus Dittes Scherkl <dominikus.scherkl continental-corporation.com> writes:
On Monday, 9 December 2019 at 15:37:07 UTC, berni44 wrote:


 And just to make it clear: Not all of these fixes have been 
 made by me (indeed I made only 3 of these real ones) - I count 
 *all* changes, looking at this as some sort of a community 
 afford.


"Issues" forum seems to be offline - last change 4 days ago while 
on bugzilla there are a lot of more recent changes (e.g. the ones 
you listed here)
Dec 09 2019
parent Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, 9 December 2019 at 16:52:47 UTC, Dominikus Dittes 
Scherkl wrote:

 "Issues" forum seems to be offline - last change 4 days ago 
 while on bugzilla there are a lot of more recent changes (e.g. 
 the ones you listed here)


There's a breakdown somewhere between Bugzilla and the NNTP 
server where the forum interface pulls all the posts from. I 
contacted the relevant parties a day ago.
Dec 09 2019
prev sibling parent reply berni44 <dlang d-ecke.de> writes:
9.day: 6 bugs were removed (issues 6641, 8224, 8947, 10465, 
14630, 20431)

Real fixes:
Issue 20431 - Allow a Mixin Type to resolve to an expression 
where it makes sense
Dec 10 2019
next sibling parent Martin Tschierschke <mt smartdolphin.de> writes:
On Tuesday, 10 December 2019 at 08:59:52 UTC, berni44 wrote:

 9.day: 6 bugs were removed (issues 6641, 8224, 8947, 10465, 
 14630, 20431)

 Real fixes:
 Issue 20431 - Allow a Mixin Type to resolve to an expression 
 where it makes sense


Your total count now stands at 42! :-) [1]

[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/42_(number)#The_Hitchhiker's_Guide_to_the_Galaxy

Thank you!
Dec 10 2019
prev sibling next sibling parent Seb <seb wilzba.ch> writes:
On Tuesday, 10 December 2019 at 08:59:52 UTC, berni44 wrote:

 9.day: 6 bugs were removed (issues 6641, 8224, 8947, 10465, 
 14630, 20431)

 Real fixes:
 Issue 20431 - Allow a Mixin Type to resolve to an expression 
 where it makes sense


I just wanted to say that this is a great idea and I am looking 
forward to the next "doors".
Thank you very much!
Dec 10 2019
prev sibling parent reply berni44 <dlang d-ecke.de> writes:
10. day: 15 bugs were removed (issues 4586, 4589, 4606, 5488, 
8867, 13560, 15048, 17187, 18248, 18411, 19302, 19493, 19533, 
20331, 20411)

Real fixes:
Issue 18248 - radix overload of std.conv.parse fails to throw on 
non-empty range
               without number
Issue 20331 - checkaction=context segfaults when calling function 
literal
Dec 10 2019
next sibling parent reply tchaloupka <chalucha gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 11 December 2019 at 07:24:13 UTC, berni44 wrote:

 10. day: 15 bugs were removed (issues 4586, 4589, 4606, 5488, 
 8867, 13560, 15048, 17187, 18248, 18411, 19302, 19493, 19533, 
 20331, 20411)

 Real fixes:
 Issue 18248 - radix overload of std.conv.parse fails to throw 
 on non-empty range
               without number
 Issue 20331 - checkaction=context segfaults when calling 
 function literal


Thank you, great effort!
This might be another candidate to just close: 
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15751 but might be 
better to add some tests for that first?
Dec 11 2019
parent berni44 <dlang d-ecke.de> writes:
On Wednesday, 11 December 2019 at 11:41:00 UTC, tchaloupka wrote:

 This might be another candidate to just close: 
 https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15751 but might be 
 better to add some tests for that first?


I'm not sure. I'm primarily busy with Phobos and have little 
experience in the realm of dmd. I tried the script given in the 
first comment and got "pass=0 fail=100". But I've got Linux and 
the bug is filed as a Windows bug.
Dec 11 2019
prev sibling parent reply berni44 <dlang d-ecke.de> writes:
11. day: 8 bugs were removed (issues 11171, 14909, 17745, 19296, 
20160, 20319, 20355, 20440)

Real fixes:
Issue 17745 - Upgrade DLang Bugzilla to 4.4.12
Issue 20160 - ThreadInfo.cleanup() clears local thread's 
registered names instead
               of "this"'s
Issue 20355 - undefined identifier U in core.atomic
Issue 20440 - Associative arrays with values whose opAssign 
doesn't return a ref don't
               support require function
Dec 11 2019
next sibling parent reply mipri <mipri minimaltype.com> writes:
On Thursday, 12 December 2019 at 07:46:23 UTC, berni44 wrote:

 11. day: 8 bugs were removed (issues 11171, 14909, 17745, 
 19296, 20160, 20319, 20355, 20440)

 Real fixes:
 Issue 17745 - Upgrade DLang Bugzilla to 4.4.12
 Issue 20160 - ThreadInfo.cleanup() clears local thread's 
 registered names instead
               of "this"'s
 Issue 20355 - undefined identifier U in core.atomic
 Issue 20440 - Associative arrays with values whose opAssign 
 doesn't return a ref don't
               support require function


Really good turnaround on 20440. That was discussed in IRC just
2-3 days ago when people doing Advent of Code ran into it.
Dec 11 2019
parent berni44 <dlang d-ecke.de> writes:
On Thursday, 12 December 2019 at 07:51:41 UTC, mipri wrote:

 Really good turnaround on 20440. That was discussed in IRC just
 2-3 days ago when people doing Advent of Code ran into it.


I was impressed too: The moment, I spotted this issue, it was 
allready fixed...
Dec 12 2019
prev sibling parent reply berni44 <dlang d-ecke.de> writes:
12. day: 18 bugs were removed (issues 4880, 6592, 8338, 9592, 
15312, 15940, 17092, 17121, 17830, 17992, 18287, 18974, 19007, 
19010, 19237, 20316, 20349, 20427)

Real fixes:
Issue 6592 - di header file created even if errors occur
Issue 15940 - ImplicitConversionTargets and class alias in struct
Issue 20349 - [REG2.087] ICE with sqrt
Dec 12 2019
next sibling parent Basile B. <b2.temp gmx.com> writes:
On Friday, 13 December 2019 at 06:07:34 UTC, berni44 wrote:

 12. day: 18 bugs were removed (issues 4880, 6592, 8338, 9592, 
 15312, 15940, 17092, 17121, 17830, 17992, 18287, 18974, 19007, 
 19010, 19237, 20316, 20349, 20427)

 Real fixes:
 Issue 6592 - di header file created even if errors occur
 Issue 15940 - ImplicitConversionTargets and class alias in 
 struct
 Issue 20349 - [REG2.087] ICE with sqrt


Hello Bernie. I've posted two patches in the bugtracker 
yesterday. I have no GH account right now but someone can make 
the PRs:

- https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17222#c2
- https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19454#c1
Dec 13 2019
prev sibling parent reply berni44 <dlang d-ecke.de> writes:
13. day: 6 bugs were removed (issues 9582, 10670, 11782, 18446, 
19818, 20441)

Real fixes:
Issue 11782 - format pointer to range prints range
Issue 18446 - Wrong curl onProgress examples
Issue 20441 - Wrong code with -O -fPIC and pointer subtraction
Dec 13 2019
next sibling parent "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> writes:
On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 07:48:15AM +0000, berni44 via Digitalmars-d wrote:

 13. day: 6 bugs were removed (issues 9582, 10670, 11782, 18446, 19818,
 20441)
 
 Real fixes:
 Issue 11782 - format pointer to range prints range
 Issue 18446 - Wrong curl onProgress examples
 Issue 20441 - Wrong code with -O -fPIC and pointer subtraction


Awesome!  Keep up the good work!


T

-- 
In order to understand recursion you must first understand recursion.
Dec 14 2019
prev sibling parent reply berni44 <dlang d-ecke.de> writes:
14. day: 9 bugs were removed (issues 7964, 8930, 9379, 10173, 
12462, 15004, 17109, 17125, 18290)

Real fixes:
Issue 17125 - Header Generation Incorrectly Formats Floating 
Point Number
Dec 15 2019
parent reply berni44 <dlang d-ecke.de> writes:
15. day: 1 bug was removed (issue 14727)
Dec 15 2019
parent reply berni44 <dlang d-ecke.de> writes:
16. day: 2 bugs were removed (issues 8927 and 18036)
Dec 16 2019
parent reply berni44 <dlang d-ecke.de> writes:
17. day: 6 bugs were removed (issues 9376, 12228, 13892, 14445, 
15405, 19640)
Dec 17 2019
parent reply berni44 <dlang d-ecke.de> writes:
18. day: 17 bugs were removed (issues 4473, 5872, 7865, 16375, 
17100, 17978, 18393, 18399, 18657, 19060, 19205, 19309, 20151, 
20303, 20383, 20446, 20454)

Real fixes:
Issue 20151 - particular directory layout causes DMD to crash 
with an access violation
Issue 20303 - Memory leak in core.thread
Issue 20383 - [REG 2.084.z] illegal conversion from int[] to 
ubyte[] is accepted
Dec 18 2019
next sibling parent reply berni44 <dlang d-ecke.de> writes:
19. day: 6 bugs were removed (issues 6588, 6938, 11466, 12435, 
15405, 15962)

Real fixes:
Issue 15405 - FormatSpec.writeUpToNextSpec() not documented
Dec 19 2019
parent reply berni44 <dlang d-ecke.de> writes:
20. day: 3 bugs were removed (issues 11694, 13773, 16370)
Dec 21 2019
parent reply berni44 <dlang d-ecke.de> writes:
21. day: 8 bugs were removed (issues 7456, 9937, 10507, 11947, 
13326, 13923, 18294, 18832)

Real fixes:
Issue 9937 - CTFE floats don't overflow correctly
Dec 21 2019
parent reply berni44 <dlang d-ecke.de> writes:
22. day: 4 bugs were removed (issues 7737, 17232, 17597, 19564)
Dec 22 2019
next sibling parent reply Timon Gehr <timon.gehr gmx.ch> writes:
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.
Dec 23 2019
next sibling parent reply Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy gmail.com> writes:
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
Dec 23 2019
parent reply Timon Gehr <timon.gehr gmx.ch> writes:
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.
Dec 23 2019
parent bachmeier <no spam.net> writes:
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.
Dec 23 2019
prev sibling next sibling parent reply berni44 <dlang d-ecke.de> writes:
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
Dec 23 2019
parent Timon Gehr <timon.gehr gmx.ch> writes:
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
Dec 23 2019
prev sibling parent jxel <jxel gmall.com> writes:
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.
Dec 23 2019
prev sibling parent reply berni44 <dlang d-ecke.de> writes:
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
Dec 24 2019
parent reply berni44 <dlang d-ecke.de> writes:
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. :-)
Dec 25 2019
parent Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy gmail.com> writes:
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
Dec 25 2019
prev sibling parent Bastiaan Veelo <Bastiaan Veelo.net> writes:
On Thursday, 19 December 2019 at 05:40:10 UTC, berni44 wrote:
[...]

 Issue 20303 - Memory leak in core.thread


Greet work!

Bastiaan.
Dec 20 2019