Also, in order to avoid 100's even at the beginning, why don't we split the 100's up and do them over several weeks? I can take care of this if it's the decision. I can filter by date and do maybe 2 week increments - I believe the oldest NEEDINFO bug is from nearly a year ago with no activity. Thoughts?
Best Regards, Joel On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 5:13 AM, Petr Mladek <pmla...@suse.cz> wrote: > On Mon, 2013-01-28 at 10:05 +0100, Rainer Bielefeld wrote: > > Petr Mladek schrieb: > > > This will cause many mails only in the first round. It will be normal > > > level of mails if we do this regularly. > > > > > > Hi, > > > > That's an illusion, total number of mails will always be the the same. > > Only the number of mails per cleanup will be smaller. > > IMHO, there is a difference when you get 100 mails now because we want > to clean up the current "mess" or when you get 5 mails per week when we > do this regularly. > > > BTW, I dislike the "noise" the discussed "3 strikes" solution will > > cause. I'm thinking about a different solution: > > I am against 3 strike solution as well :-) My opinion is that it would > cause to big traffic and do not help much. If people does not react for > the first warning, there is only small chance that they would react on > the second or third one. > > > Strike 1: > > Query will find NEEDINFO bugs untouched for a long time and fulfilling > > some additional "hopeless criteria". > > Reporter's of these bugs will get polite mail with request to contribute > > additional info that we will have to close the bug without additional > > info. This mailing only send mails to reporters, will not change any > > info in the Bugs, so that data as "Days since last change" and similar > > will be available for other queries. List of related bugs will be > > published on QA list > > > > That's not a big technical challenge, I think I can create required > > tools (what can be used fur further actions in future easily) within 1 > hour. > > > > Strike 2 After 7 Days: > > Query for all Bugs for what mails have been sent in Strike 1: > > - Changed since mail (probably by reporter): QA will take care > > - NOT changed: Mass close via Bugzilla with polite message > > "Sorry ..., but feel free to reopen if ..." > > > > What do think? > > I like this solution. It is polite and creates only one change in > bugzilla. > > > BTW, I would not do that too often. Sometimes it's simply not easy for > > reporter to contribute desired info, for example because bug is not > > simple to reproduce. May be such bugs can be marked by entry of a QA > > "Mentor" in QA contact or similar. > > I would do this regularly to keep bugzilla clean and avoid masschanges > in hunderts of bugs. There are different reporters, so we will not touch > the same reporter in each round. IMHO, the most important is to give > user chance to answer before the first warning (30 days or so). > > > Best Regards, > Petr > > > -- *Joel Madero* LibO QA Volunteer jmadero....@gmail.com
_______________________________________________ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
