[Libreoffice-qa] Stagnant NEEDINFO bugs

Joel Madero jmadero.dev at gmail.com
Mon Jan 28 09:37:04 PST 2013

Also, in order to avoid 100's even at the beginning, why don't we split the
100's up and do them over several weeks? I can take care of this if it's
the decision. I can filter by date and do maybe 2 week increments - I
believe the oldest NEEDINFO bug is from nearly a year ago with no activity.

Best Regards,

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 5:13 AM, Petr Mladek <pmladek at suse.cz> wrote:

> On Mon, 2013-01-28 at 10:05 +0100, Rainer Bielefeld wrote:
> > Petr Mladek schrieb:
> > > This will cause many mails only in the first round. It will be normal
> > > level of mails if we do this regularly.
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > That's an illusion, total number of mails will always be the the same.
> > Only the number of mails per cleanup will be smaller.
> IMHO, there is a difference when you get 100 mails now because we want
> to clean up the current "mess" or when you get 5 mails per week when we
> do this regularly.
> > BTW, I dislike the "noise" the discussed "3 strikes" solution will
> > cause. I'm thinking about a different solution:
> I am against 3 strike solution as well :-) My opinion is that it would
> cause to big traffic and do not help much. If people does not react for
> the first warning, there is only small chance that they would react on
> the second or third one.
> > Strike 1:
> > Query will find NEEDINFO bugs untouched for a long time and fulfilling
> > some additional "hopeless criteria".
> > Reporter's of these bugs will get polite mail with request to contribute
> > additional info that we will have to close the bug without additional
> > info. This mailing  only send mails to reporters, will not change any
> > info in the Bugs, so that data as "Days since last change" and similar
> > will be available for other queries. List of related bugs will be
> > published on QA list
> >
> > That's not a big technical challenge, I think I can create required
> > tools (what can be used fur further actions in future easily) within 1
> hour.
> >
> > Strike 2 After 7 Days:
> > Query for all Bugs for what mails have been sent in Strike 1:
> > - Changed since mail (probably by reporter): QA will take care
> > - NOT changed: Mass close via Bugzilla with polite message
> >    "Sorry ..., but feel free to reopen if ..."
> >
> > What do think?
> I like this solution. It is polite and creates only one change in
> bugzilla.
> > BTW, I would not do that too often. Sometimes it's simply not easy for
> > reporter to contribute desired info, for example because bug is not
> > simple to reproduce. May be such bugs can be marked by entry of a QA
> > "Mentor" in QA contact or similar.
> I would do this regularly to keep bugzilla clean and avoid masschanges
> in hunderts of bugs. There are different reporters, so we will not touch
> the same reporter in each round. IMHO, the most important is to give
> user chance to answer before the first warning (30 days or so).
> Best Regards,
> Petr

*Joel Madero*
LibO QA Volunteer
jmadero.dev at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/attachments/20130128/eec29aa4/attachment.html>

More information about the Libreoffice-qa mailing list