A couple of changes to note

[Greg Grossmeier]

On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu at kitterman.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 15:48:52 -0500 Greg Grossmeier
> <greg.grossmeier at gmail.com> wrote:
>>There was a decision made to not actually mark "expired" bugs as
>>invalid as, I believe, there was some vocal opposition to it.  So
>>Ubuntu has been one of the projects to "[disable] bug expiry are part
>>of the bug expiration process."
>>
>>This page [0] will list all bugs that are 'expirable' and is linked to
>>from the main Ubuntu bugs page on Launchpad.
>>
> Given that Ubuntu has already decided it doesn't want bugs to automatically
> be invalidated after a period of time, the notion that triagers should
> automatically mark bugs invalid after a set period of time seems odd to me.

I agree.  And because I agree, I would personally like this whole
'work flow' to be automated.  If a bug is expirable according to
current requirements, have Launchpad Janitor post a "hey, this is old
and untouched and incomplete, please respond," then wait the two
weeks, then invalidate.

Yes, I am advocating to re-enable the auto-expiry feature of
Launchpad.  As I believe that the percentage of incorrectly
invalidated reports by a system like this will be low (I have no
evidence for this, just a gut feeling), simply having a page that
lists reports that have comments made to them AFTER Launchpad Janitor
auto-expired them _should_ be enough to not lose valid reports.

Of course, this is beyond the scope of the current topic, which is
adding the extra step in invalidating bugs, which I am ok with.

Best,

Greg