A couple of changes to note

[Mackenzie Morgan]

On Wednesday 04 March 2009 8:08:31 am Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 06:53:44 -0500 Mackenzie Morgan <macoafi at gmail.com> 
> wrote:
> >On Wednesday 04 March 2009 5:26:35 am Wolfger wrote: 
> >> Speaking as somebody who does a lot of invalidating of old bugs, I
> >> have to say that responses from the submitter are the exception, not
> >> the rule. Maybe (and I'm being generous) 10% of these bugs see life
> >> again. So this (proposed?) change only adds to the work load without
> >> providing any extra value. Under the 4-weeks-to-dead system, a triager
> >> only touches the bug once, and if the bug is still alive, the
> >> submitter touches the bug once. Under this new system, triagers will
> >> have to touch the bug twice if they are dead (don't play with dead
> >> bugs!), but the process for it's-not-dead-yet bugs hasn't actually
> >> changed at all.
> >
> >Leaving a bug which has not had a response alone, in incomplete-without-
> >response mode does not hurt anything.  They don't *need* to be closed. 
> >Prompting the user to supply more of the needed input can be good.  Going 
> >through the list of bugs last touched 28 days ago and killing them makes 
> >reporters feel ignored. The bugs aren't dead til you invalidate them.  
> Someone 
> >that can reproduce it can supply the needed input.  Once you invalidate, 
> it 
> >goes off everyone's radar and stops showing up in bug searches, so people 
> who 
> >can reproduce have to go through submitting a whole new bug when they 
> could've 
> >just added the one missing piece of information to the original. 
> >
> >Triaging's not about closing as many bugs as possible.  It's about 
> improving 
> >bug reports.  You could say "resolving" bugs, but "nevermind we don't want 
> to 
> >deal with you because you're not prompt enough" isn't really a resolution.
> >
> I missed the start of this thread (I guess it just spilled over from -bugs 
> to -qa).  I'm curious what change is being proposed.
> 
> I generally echo what Mackenzie is saying.  I'd add that Launchpad has an 
> auto-expire feature that Ubuntu should use if it wants bugs to expire after 
> a certain period of no reply.  If the project has chosen not to use it/have 
> a longer timeout, then I don't think triagers should feel obligated to fill 
> the gap.

It was in use.  A lot of bug reporters and developers were very *not happy* 
when bugs were automatically closed by the system en masse.

-- 
Mackenzie Morgan
http://ubuntulinuxtipstricks.blogspot.com
apt-get moo
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-bugsquad/attachments/20090304/79f2fb08/attachment.sig>