A couple of changes to note

[Scott Kitterman]

On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 15:54:52 -0500 Mackenzie Morgan <macoafi at gmail.com> 
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.

Agreed and I don't see doing the same thing by hand as progress.

Scott K