on closing "old" and "inactive" bug reports

[Rocco Stanzione]

On Tuesday 29 August 2006 2:53 am, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Just seen a bunch of bug reports closed due to being "to old" or
> "inactivity".
>
> While I understand that a bug database with less open bug reports looks
> nicer, I don't see any value in doing so. There seem to be a lot of
> people doing bug "triaging" without even trying to reproduce a problem.
> Problems don't go away with time when nothing is done to fix these, and
> the next bug submitter doesn't find a bug and files it again.
>
> It seems we need some rules to separate the karma addicts from real bug
> triagers, i.e.
>
> - don't close bug reports assigned to people (without testing or asking)
> - don't close confirmed bug reports
> - "old" or "inactive" should not be closed; if we really want to do
> this, we could
>   surely do this automatically.

That was me last night.  It occurred to me that it might not be a bad idea.  
That it might even be useful.  The next step wasn't to start closing bugs.  I 
asked about it on #ubuntu-devel.  It was briefly discussed, then I was 
advised to ask sfllaw, who promptly appeared.  It was discussed some more, 
and the idea received the blessing of the guy I was asked to ask, so I began.  
I believe the vast majority of the tickets I closed should have been closed.  
There was some volume, and it's certainly possible I closed a few that I 
shouldn't have, but none that didn't meet the criteria we discussed.  I was 
adhering to a "when in doubt, leave it alone" policy.  I did it with comments 
that would let any subscribers know what to do if they didn't think the bug 
should be closed, and I subscribed to them so I'd get any replies.

One thing that wasn't discussed was that bugs that were assigned shouldn't be 
closed.  I agree, it never occurred to me, and it was never mentioned.  
Anyway, for lack of consensus or clear policy, I'll certainly stop doing it.

Thanks,

Rocco