[Libreoffice-qa] Stagnant NEEDINFO bugs

[Petr Mladek]

On Sun, 2013-01-27 at 13:43 +0100, Rainer Bielefeld wrote:
> I) Such an action should avoid collateral damages as effective as 
> possible. A promising approach might be to find an effective query with 
> good accuracy for hopeless Bug reports where we can expect that there 
> will be no useful reaction from reporter, AND where we can be sure that 
> the NEEDINFO is appropriate and not only caused by laziness of reviewer 
> At least I can say for me that sometimes I am interested and tough and I 
> find a real bug even with a very rare report. And sometimes I try to get 
> a better bug description because I want to  save some work. I will not 
> forget these Bugs, they are in my hold-file, but if I saw a low 
> priority, it might take a year or so until I get back to the bug. And 
> this might cause unnecessary work for other reviewers, may be hundreds 
> invest half a minute, see that someone is involved, leave again, and so 
> we loose some hors every year in such 1 bug.

This is one thing that I am afraid of as well. We could close bugs that
are somehow solvable but nobody has found time to do more investigation.

The question is how many bugs belong to this category. Someone pointed
out that bugs that have been in NEEDINFO longer time are often dead
ends.

I think that we newer will be perfect. If a bug is staying around for a
long time, it is not super cricical. If we close valid bug and nobody
bother to reopen it, it is not supercritical as well. We have more bugs
that we are able to fix, so we could use this as a natural filtering of
the less important and thus very low priority bugs.

I am sure that if a bug is important and we close it "by mistake",
someone will reopen it. This activity will bring more attention to it
and move it forward. It is not ideal but it has positive effects. What
do you think?


Best Regards,
Petr