HOW TO TRIAGE EMACS BUGS  -*- outline -*-

This document just describes the procedure of triaging bugs, for information on
how to work with the bug tracker, see the bugtracker file in this same directory
for the basics.  You can also install the debbugs ELPA package for access to M-x
debbugs-gnu, an emacs interface to debbugs, and M-x debbugs-org, an emacs
interface via org-mode.

* Bug backlog triage procedure

The goal of this triage is to prune down the list of old bugs, closing
the ones that are not reproducible on the current release.

  1. To start, enter debbugs mode (either debbugs-gnu, debbugs-org, or via the
     web browser), and accept the default list option of bugs that have severity
     serious, important, or normal.
  2. This will also show closed bugs that have yet to be archived.  You can
     filter these out in debbugs-gnu with "x" (debbugs-gnu-toggle-suppress).
  3. For each bug, we want to primarily make sure it is still
     reproducible.  A bug can and should stay open as long as it is
     still a bug and no one has fixed it.  The following is a
     suggested checklist to follow for handling these bugs, along with
     example replies.  Closing, tagging, etc., are done
     with debbugs control messages, which in debbugs-gnu is initiated
     with a "C".
     [ ] Read the mail thread for the bug.  Find out if anyone has
         been able to reproduce this on the current release.  If
         someone has been able to, then your work is finished for this
         bug.
     [ ] Make sure there's enough information to reproduce the bug.
         It should be very clear how to reproduce.  If not, please ask
         for specific steps to reproduce.  If you don't get them, and
         you can't reproduce without them, you can close as
         "doneunreproducible".  Sometimes there is specific hardware
         involved, such as particular models of keyboards, or it may
         simply involve a platform you don't have access to.  It's
         fine to ignore those, and let a future triager that is better
         equipped to reproduce it handle it.

         An example reply asking for clear reproduction steps would be
         something like: "Hi!  In the interest of seeing whether this
         is reproducible, and to aid anyone who will look at this bug
         in the future, can you please give instructions on how to
         reproduce this bug starting from an emacs without
         configuration ("emacs -Q")?
     [ ] If there is enough detail to reproduce, but no one has
         mentioned being able to reproduce on the current release,
         read the bug description and attempt to reproduce on an emacs
         started with "emacs -Q" (the goal is to not let our personal
         configs interfere with bug testing).

         If you can reproduce, then reply on the thread (either on the
         original message, or anywhere you find appropriate) that you
         can reproduce this on the current release. If your
         reproduction gives additional info (such as a backtrace),
         then add that as well, since it will help whoever attempts to
         fix it.

         Example reply: "I'd just like to add that I can reproduce
         this on the latest version of Emacs, Emacs 25."

         If you can't reproduce, state that you can't reproduce it on
         the current release, ask if they can try again against the
         current release.  Tag the bug as "unreproducable".  Wait a
         few weeks for their reply - if they can reproduce it, then
         that's great, otherwise close as "doneunreproducible".

         Example reply: "I've attempted to reproduce this on the
         latest version of emacs, Emacs 25, but haven't been able to.
         Can you try to reproduce this on this version, and let us
         know if you are able to?  If I don't hear back in a few
         weeks, I'll just close this bug as unreproducible."
     [ ] Check that the priority is reasonable.  Most bugs should be
         marked as normal, but crashers and security issues can be
         marked as serious.
  4. Your changes will take some time to take effect.  After a period of minutes
     to hours, you will get a mail telling you the control message has been
     processed.  At this point, if there were no errors detected, you and
     everyone else can see your changes. If there are errors, read the error
     text - if you need help, consulting the bugtracker documentation in this
     same directory.

* New bug triage process

The goal of the new bug triage process is similar to the backlog triage process,
except that the focus is on prioritizing the bug, and making sure it is has
necessary information for others to act on.

For each new bug, ask the following questions:

  1. Is the bug report written in a way to be easy to reproduce (starts from
     emacs -Q, etc.)?  If not, ask the reporter to try and reproduce it on an
     emacs without customization.
  2. Is the bug report written against the latest emacs?  If not, try to
     reproduce on the latest version, and if it can't be reproduced, ask the
     reporter to try again with the latest version.
  3. Is the bug the same as another bug?  If so, merge the bugs.
  4. What is the priority of the bug?  Add a priority: serious, important,
     normal, minor, or wishlist.
  5. Who should be the owner?  This depends on what component the bug is part
     of.  You can look at the admin/MAINTAINERS file (then you can just search
     emacs-devel to match the name with an email address).

In the debbugs-gnu buffer, bugs are marked in the "State" column
according to the communication flow.  Red bugs mean that nobody has
answered, these bugs need primary attention.  Green bugs flag that
there is a recent communication about, and orange bugs flag that the
bug hasn't been touched for at least two weeks.