[Libreoffice-qa] Stats I plotted + Getting rid of bugs

[Florian Reisinger]

Hi!



Am 03.11.2012 um 13:18 schrieb Bjoern Michaelsen
<bjoern.michaelsen at canonical.com>:

> On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 01:57:27PM -0700, bfo wrote:
>> There was one autoclosing nightmare recently and I thought no one dare to
>> propose another one any time soon... The problem is that most of bugs are
>> not checked by anyone. As my experience shows - one manual ping can resolve
>> most issues or transfer the bug to developers. We need more people to read
>> bugs and process them, not more ideas how to autoclose them.
>
> The main problem with the last autoclose was that we had the data in an
> inconsistent state, as stuff moved from NEW to NEEDINFO without human
> interaction and then again from NEEDINFO to INVALID. That should not happen
> again as we have the state UNCORNFIRMED now.
>
> I dont quite get what Florian is aiming for. Flo, could you please explain
> which bugs you want to close (not with a query, but with words and an
> explanation why)?

I want to make life easier, but maybe it is the wrong approach, but
IMHO bugs reported against old beta (and RC) versions should get
checked, because (the possibility is higher in beta stadium) this bug
has been already fixed / is a duplicate of another bug (BTW: Does
anyone know a way to especially search for possible duplicates..?))
AND what is most important the 3.3 and 3.4 won't be developed further
(soon the same with 3.6).

I excluded the enhancement request because of one reason: I don't
understand why we allow people to file an enhancement request, because
a) The developer codes features he likes / would like to have b) We
create deceitful hopes, because the submitter thinks we will implement
every feature request (This paragraph = My opinion)


>
> Closing bugs because there was no version specified is not an option -- that is
> not to be expected from the reporter as it is nontrivial for him to check.

Why isn't it trivial to set the version to the one used at the moment
of bug submission

>
> However, these (currently 279 bugs) have been in NEEDINFO for 3 month and have
> not seen a reply since then:
>
> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/buglist.cgi?n2=1&f1=longdesc&list_id=156984&o1=changedafter&o2=changedafter&n1=1&query_format=advanced&f2=bug_status&bug_status=NEEDINFO&v1=2012-08-01&v2=2012-08-01&product=LibreOffice
>
> It is ok to close those as INVALID IMHO. But: this needs to be well prepared,
> the message going with it should be discussed here on the list. We should also
> sent a warning a la "This bug has been in NEEDINFO for more than three month
> without a comment adding new information. This means we assume that we do not
> have enough information to carry forward solving your problem. Please provide
> the missing information and set the bug to state NEW. If nothing is added to
> this bug in the next 14 days, it will be closed as invalid." to these bugs
> before closing them.

+1

>
> We might get 10% reopened with the missing info (which is good) and get rid of
> 90%, who would have never completed their bug anyway (which is good in a minor
> way too).
>
+1

> Best,
>
> Bjoern
>

Florian