[Libreoffice-qa] Stagnant NEEDINFO bugs

[Florian Reisinger]

Hi Petr, all,

Thanks for your long mail...


Am 08.02.2013 um 16:56 schrieb Petr Mladek <pmladek at 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 at 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/