Hi Petr, all, Thanks for your long mail...
Am 08.02.2013 um 16:56 schrieb Petr Mladek <pmla...@suse.cz>: > 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 I think you agree, that you shouldn't take the percentage too serious,,, 7 samples are far to less for a meaningful statistic... + If someone isn't interested for 180 days not every bug will be reopened AND because of the Dead bugs only a small number of the "no input" bugs (IMHO) are going to get reopened... > > + 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: Let's be a little bit less pessimistic: Some simply forgot about the submitted bug... > > + 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. Nice win and IMHO the win will be higher... > > 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 We (QA) have one problem : Number of active people ( in relation to the number of bugs..,) For triaging the NEEDINFO bugs we IMHO need 1/3 - 1/2 more "staff". > > 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. Personally I don't think so... > > 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? I pointed out my opinion above... > > > Best Regards, > Petr > Liebe Grüße, / Yours, Florian Reisinger > _______________________________________________ > 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/ _______________________________________________ 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/
