Autoresolving our 554 old UNCONFIRMED bugs

[Dan Kegel]

wino at piments.com wrote:
>>> http://kegel.com/wine/qa/autoresolve.html
> 
> This may help to get some fresh input on old bugs and for that it may 
> be  of value but I think the basic attitude here is wrong.

The goal of autoresolving is to automate
exactly what QA volunteers currently do manually.
If you don't like how the QA volunteers are
dealing with stale bug reports, feel free
to jump in and deal with them differently.
Or if you feel the autoresolve proposal
doesn't match what the volunteers are doing,
please say so.

The autoresolve proposal currently gets two
things wrong, I think:

1) it only sends email to
the original submitter.  It should cc all the
people who have asked to be cc'd on the bug,
of course.

2) it won't handle any bugs which are stale
but which a QA volunteer inquired about recently.

Both of those are probably fairly easy to solve.

But I'm not planning on actually doing an
autoresolve run any time soon, since the
volunteers seem to be making good headway manually.
- Dan

p.s. I do believe I'm getting too cranky to actually
interact with other people on this list.
Perhaps I should go away until, say, my two-year-old
son has learned to sleep through the night!
That'll teach me to wait until I'm old and feeble
before having my first kid next time :-)

-- 
Trying to get a job as a c++ developer?  See http://kegel.com/academy/getting-hired.html