A new issue policy for libinput - closing and reopening issues for fun and profit

This is a heads up that if you file an issue in the libinput issue tracker, it's very likely this issue will be closed. And this post explains why that's a good thing, why it doesn't mean what you want, and most importantly why you shouldn't get angry about it.

Unfixed issues have, roughly, two states: they're either waiting for someone who can triage and ideally fix it (let's call those someones "maintainers") or they're waiting on the reporter to provide some more info or test something. Let's call the former state "actionable" and the second state "needinfo". The first state is typically not explicitly communicated but the latter can be via different means, most commonly via a "needinfo" label. Labels are of course great because you can be explicit about what is needed and with our bugbot you can automate much of this.

Alas, using labels has one disadvantage: GitLab does not allow the typical bug reporter to set or remove labels - you need to have at least the Planner role in the project (or group) and, well, suprisingly reporting an issue doesn't mean you get immediately added to the project. So setting a "needinfo" label requires the maintainer to remove the label. And until that happens you have a open bug that has needinfo set and looks like it's still needing info. Not a good look, that is.

So how about we use something other than labels, so the reporter can communicate that the bug has changed to actionable? Well, as it turns out there is exactly thing a reporter can do on their own bugs other than post comments: close it and re-open it. That's it [1]. So given this vast array of options (one button!), we shall use them (click it!).

So for the forseeable future libinput will follow the following pattern:

• Reporter files an issue
• Maintainer looks at it, posts a comment requesting some information, closes the bug
• Reporter attaches information, re-opens bug
• Maintainer looks at it and either: files a PR to fix the issue or closes the bug with the wontfix/notourbug/cantfix label

Obviously the close/reopen stage may happen a few times. For the final closing where the issue isn't fixed the labels actually work well: they preserve for posterity why the bug was closed and in this case they do not need to be changed by the reporter anyway. But until that final closing the result of this approach is that an open bug is a bug that is actionable for a maintainer.

This process should work (in libinput at least), all it requires is for reporters to not get grumpy about issue being closed. And that's where this blog post (and the comments bugbot will add when closing) come in. So here's hoping. And to stave off the first question: yes, I too wish there was a better (and equally simple) way to go about this.

[1] we shall ignore magic comments that are parsed by language-understanding bots because that future isn't yet the present