A couple of changes to note

[Brian Murray]

On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 03:54:52PM -0500, Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
> 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.

Some of this was also due to the fact that not all the rules for
expiration were correct.

-- 
Brian Murray                                                 @ubuntu.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-bugsquad/attachments/20090304/dc78e864/attachment.sig>