On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 01:37:23PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Mon, 2015-03-30 at 16:17 -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 11:27:17AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > On Mon, 2015-03-30 at 09:55 -0400, Paul Wouters wrote: > > > > On Mon, 30 Mar 2015, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 03/30/2015 08:39 AM, Paul Wouters wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > There are currently no flags set at all. > > > > > > > > > > Check the flags on the attachment itself (your second link). > > > > > > > > Ohh. there is shows up. How odd. Thanks. Now at least I know how > > > > to get rid of it, although I think it should clear out all > > > > requests > > > > for closed bugs. > > > > > > This in practice isn't a safe assumption. People do legitimately > > > discuss closed bugs, including requesting and providing > > > information. > > > "Closed" does not always imply "no further discussion is needed or > > > desired". > > > > I would assert the opposite to be true. That is to say a state of > > "closed" by > > definition implies that a bug no longer needs discussion or > > consideration. In > > the converse, a bug that is still receiving updates in the form of > > comments, > > likely should not be in the state "closed". > > Dictating use of BZ is usually a futile effort, in Fedora. We have a > policy on it which is in practice rarely observed by anyone. What > should or should not be the cause is pretty much moot: what *is* the > case is that it makes sense to some of our BZ users to not treat > CLOSED in the way you advocate. BZ is, fundamentally, a tool, and > tools usually get used in the way that makes sense to the user.
Ok, I agree that dictating use is typically futile, everyone uses bugzilla in a slightly different way, like it or not. However, in this particular case we have a tool (some bot that scans bugzilla sending us emails about them), that handles interpretation of that data in way thats different from what many of us humans interpret it (that is to say, it ignores the closed state when we consider it to mean a bugzilla no longer needs review/commentary). Humans I can understand having different views, but the tools should provide the humans with what we need here. In this case I think that means one of the following: 1) Require that the bot ignore bugs that are closed (assuming a majority consensus agrees, which I understand isn't likely to happen) 2) Require that the bot be configurable by individuals to optionally ignore (1) 3) Update bugzilla to automatically reopen closed bugs that receive a new comment or status change (not a fan of this) 4) Some other solution I've not thought of yet Just accepting that the tools send us email for bz's we're not interested in doesn't seem like a reasonable solution here. Neil > -- > Adam Williamson > Fedora QA Community Monkey > IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net > http://www.happyassassin.net > > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
