on closing "old" and "inactive" bug reports

[Barry deFreese]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rocco Stanzione" <grasshopper at linuxkungfu.org>
To: <ubuntu-devel at lists.ubuntu.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 9:31 AM
Subject: Re: on closing "old" and "inactive" bug reports


> 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
>

Well I noticed a few of the bugs that came through were ones that I had 
subscribed to and had asked for feedback a couple of months ago.  In my 
mind, those were fine to close but I certainly have no say around here.

Thanks,

Barry deFreese (aka bddebian)