Florian Reisinger píše v Čt 07. 02. 2013 v 16:36 +0100:
> 71,43% NO INPUT
> 28,57% SHOULD BE REVIEWED
I think what might be a globally acceptable solution for our problem:
+ 20%-30% of wrongly closed bugs is relatively high number. It
is realistic. I think that it corresponds with the number of
reopened bugs from the first two mass closes
+ few active bug triaggers (Rainer, Alex, ???) are against
automatic mass close
+ most people agree on closing dead bugs
So what are the numbers:
+ 785 bugs is NEEDINFO more than 1 month
+ 532 bugs in NEEDINFO more than 3 months
+ 328 bugs in NEEDINFO more than 6 months
+ 1456 bugs is UNCONFIRMED and needs triage
+ 270 bugs is REOPENED and might need triage
Let's be pessimistic and say that only 2/3 of the NEEDINFO bugs are dead
and the rest will get reopened => the mass close will get rid of:
+ 523 bugs if we close after 1 month
+ 354 bugs if we close after 3 months
+ 218 bugs if we close after 6 months
3 months is a good compromise that should be acceptable for most people.
If we decide to use this limit, then would get:
+ 354 automatically closed bugs (2/3 of 532)
+ 447 REOPENED bugs (270 + 1/3 of 532)
+ 1456 UNCONFIRMED bugs
=========
+ 354 closed bugs
+ 1903 bugs needing triage (1456+447)
So, the mass change would solve about 15% of the bugs. On the other
hand, it might demotivate some active triagers and make some users
angry.
Resume:
=======
I see two solutions.
1. Majority of people agrees that 15% is a nice win and we will do the
mass change.
2. We will close the dead bugs manually:
+ add query for stalling NEEDINFO bugs and ask for triage
+ encourage triagers to close dead bugs older than X months
+ propose a good closing text on the wiki
The risk is that triagers would feed bad to close dead bugs. The
advantage of the mass close is that it is kind of annonymous.
After all, I slightly prefer the second solution. It should not be much
work to close dead bugs, especially in compare with the work that has
already been invested into these bugs. It is more clean and should be
better acceptable for all involved, especially from the long term point
of view.
What do you think?
Best Regards,
Petr
_______________________________________________
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/
