On Tue, 2001-12-11 at 20:57, Paul Egli wrote: > Quoting Jesper Skov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > I hereby declare bugs that haven't been touched for 2+ months for stale. > > That might be a bit hasty, IMHO. Perhaps 2+ binary releases... (?)
A reporter's resposiveness should me measured in time, surely. Albeit, I'll agree that we'd one at least one release after the bug was fixed. > > > > In the future, I will close the following classes of stale bugs: > > > > o QA TO QUALIFY: > > Apparently whoever filed the bug (and others) are not annoyed > > by this bug anymore, and they forgot to close it. > > > > o OPEN/SUBMIT where someone has requested additional information > > and not received it: > > Submitter apparently don't care anymore - and without the extra > > information, the bug is useless. > > This sounds good to me. Though, we might want an organized way of determining > and keeping track of who has contacted who. Perhaps, simply, the bug's owner is > responsible; if you want to investigate, take ownership. Once you've gathered > more info, post your findings and re-assign the bug (or whatever is > appropriate). I personally don't want to e-mail a user asking for more info, if > they're already receiving such inquiries from other developers. Which reminds > me... > > For bugs logged by users who are not active in abiword development, I think it > is important to send an e-mail to the user asking specific questions, not just > add a comment to the bug report in bugzilla saying you need more info. If a > church secretary logs a bug, s/he might never visit bugzilla again, but would > probably be delighted to reply to a friendly e-mail (not the ones bugzilla > automatically sends out ;-). I love that - but it's just not practical; it takes too much time. I don't have an accurate number of the bug flow in Bugzilla, but I suspect we process about 40-50 bugs a week. Spend an additional 5 minutes of hand-holding on each, and we lose ~4 hours of developer time [which is probably about the amount of time I can give AbiWord a week]. If we had some non-developer volunteers willing to step up and do the work, I would be happy for things to work like that. But they don't... > > For the latter class, I've considered adding a new CLOSED/NEEDINFO state > > to bugzilla. Sam, do you know hard it would be to do so? Meanwhile, I'll > > be using CLOSED/INVALID. > > > > Note that this does not mean that we ignore those bugs. If you find one > > of your bugs closed as stale because you've been busy or out of time, > > simply reopen it, adding the necessary information to make it a valid > > bug again. > > > > It's simply a way to keep the BugZilla backlog from getting out of hand: > > skimming the same old set of bugs when looking for stuff to do is very > > tiring (and rather frustrating, actually). The developers' time is > > limited - this is a way to forcibly shift some of the BugZilla triage to > > the users who actually report and care about the bugs. > > This also sounds good to me. Anything else we can do to clean up the bug > database would make it easier for a QA man like me to get back in on the > project (e.g. fix such annoyances as the one Piotr mentioned in his e-mail. > There seems to be lots of these quirks lingering in our version of bugzilla). I'd like Sam to tell us - he should know the effort involved with an update. > > Jesper - believing it's time we cleaned up the mess > > I agree. I'm sorry I haven't been of much help in the bug database lately. > Please let me know how I can be of help (meta-QA work on bugzilla, or whatever > else). When I pitch in on the bugs, the ones I have to leave alone are Windows bugs, because I have no chance of testing/QAing them. If you want to feel heroic, please dig in :) Jesper
