On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 01:02:29PM +0200, Markus Zoeller wrote: > TL;DR: Automatic closing of 185 bug reports which are older than 18 > months in the week R-13. Skipping specific bug reports is possible. A > bug report comment explains the reasons.
FWIW, I did the same thing in Cinder a while back and there weren't any issues because of it raised to my attention. I agree that something that old likely no longer is an issue, or probably has been fixed by a more recent bug report or indirectly by another change. > > > I'd like to get rid of more clutter in our bug list to make it more > comprehensible by a human being. For this, I'm targeting our ~185 bug > reports which were reported 18 months ago and still aren't in progress. > That's around 37% of open bug reports which aren't in progress. This > post is about *how* and *when* I do it. If you have very strong reasons > to *not* do it, let me hear them. > > When > ---- > I plan to do it in the week after the non-priority feature freeze. > That's week R-13, at the beginning of July. Until this date you can > comment on bug reports so they get spared from this cleanup (see below). > Beginning from R-13 until R-5 (Newton-3 milestone), we should have > enough time to gain some overview of the rest. > > I also think it makes sense to make this a repeated effort, maybe after > each milestone/release or monthly or daily. > > How > --- > The bug reports which will be affected are: > * in status: [new, confirmed, triaged] > * AND without assignee > * AND created at: > 18 months > A preview of them can be found at [1]. > > You can spare bug reports if you leave a comment there which says > one of these (case-sensitive flags): > * CONFIRMED FOR: NEWTON > * CONFIRMED FOR: MITAKA > * CONFIRMED FOR: LIBERTY > > The expired bug report will have: > * status: won't fix > * assignee: none > * importance: undecided > * a new comment which explains *why* this was done > > The comment the expired bug reports will get: > This is an automated cleanup. This bug report got closed because > it is older than 18 months and there is no open code change to > fix this. After this time it is unlikely that the circumstances > which lead to the observed issue can be reproduced. > If you can reproduce it, please: > * reopen the bug report > * AND leave a comment "CONFIRMED FOR: <RELEASE_NAME>" > Only still supported release names are valid. > valid example: CONFIRMED FOR: LIBERTY > invalid example: CONFIRMED FOR: KILO > * AND add the steps to reproduce the issue (if applicable) > > > Let me know if you think this comment gives enough information how to > handle this situation. > > > References: > [1] http://45.55.105.55:8082/bugs-dashboard.html#tabExpired > > -- > Regards, Markus Zoeller (markus_z) > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev