On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 1:34 AM, Duncan Thomas <duncan.tho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Cinder bugs list was far more manageable once this had been done. > > It is worth sharing the tool for this? I realise it's fairly trivial to > write one, but some standardisation on the comment format etc seems > valuable, particularly for Q/A folks who work between different projects. > ​consistency sure seems like a nice thing to me.​ > > On 23 May 2016 at 14:02, Markus Zoeller <mzoel...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > 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. >> >> >> 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 >> > > > > -- > -- > Duncan Thomas > > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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