bugs audit volunteers required

[Vijay Kiran Kamuju]

On Dec 31, 2007 5:19 PM, Austin English <austinenglish at gmail.com> wrote:
> I've been doing this a little bit at a time for a while. I just wanted
> to check base and make sure all on the same page. For starters, here's
> a search of all bugs not touched in 6 months:
> http://bugs.winehq.org/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&short_desc=&product=Wine&long_desc_type=substring&long_desc=&bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstr&bug_file_loc=&status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstr&status_whiteboard=&keywords_type=allwords&keywords=&bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&emailassigned_to1=1&emailtype1=substring&email1=&emailassigned_to2=1&emailreporter2=1&emailcc2=1&emailtype2=substring&email2=&bugidtype=include&bug_id=&votes=&chfieldfrom=&chfieldto=Now&chfieldvalue=&cmdtype=doit&order=Reuse+same+sort+as+last+time&field0-0-0=days_elapsed&type0-0-0=greaterthan&value0-0-0=180
Cool, I generally do it manually by checking every old bug <8000

> Which is the main list I work from for triaging old bugs. Here's
> another link with bugs that have a download available:
> http://bugs.winehq.org/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&short_desc=&product=Wine&long_desc_type=substring&long_desc=&bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstr&bug_file_loc=&status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstr&status_whiteboard=&keywords_type=allwords&keywords=&bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&emailassigned_to1=1&emailtype1=substring&email1=&emailassigned_to2=1&emailreporter2=1&emailcc2=1&emailtype2=substring&email2=&bugidtype=include&bug_id=&votes=&chfieldfrom=&chfieldto=Now&chfieldvalue=&cmdtype=doit&order=Reuse+same+sort+as+last+time&field0-0-0=days_elapsed&type0-0-0=greaterthan&value0-0-0=180&field0-1-0=keywords&type0-1-0=allwordssubstr&value0-1-0=download
>
> Furthermore, what criteria are we using for considering a bug
> abandoned? I've been closing bugs that have had a lingering
> question/request (e.g., requested a log/test) but received no reply in
> 6 months.
Generally we consider the bug as abandoned if the submitter does not
respond for more than 1yr(at least 6months).
Generally we consider the time factor if we could not get the application name.
or if the submitter does not clearly  explain the problem. (with to
implementation of features  or specialized test cases)
And we check whether it belongs to any of the metabugs already present.
Mostly for the older apps we would like to manually test ourselves
with the links provided.
As for the old bugs submitters might have forgotten about them.
So we need to test it ourselves and put the logs or somethiing like
still present in latest git.
>
> Lastly, how long are we trying to do this over? I try to limit my
> testing/requests so as to not spam everyone too much, but if we go
> through and verify all these old bugs, it's going to be _a lot_ of
> bugzilla activity. Is everyone prepared for/okay with that?
We would be doing this for 1-2 months as the Wine 1.0 release might
happen in may be next 6-7 months time. We might expect lotta bugzilla
activity as wine goes out of beta.
and all the old bugs will be ignored and bugs grow exponentially.
There will be lotta bugzilla spam, we cant avoid it ;)
Last time it was mostly done by Jonathan Ernst and others, also by me

--
VJ
>
> -Austin
>
>
>
> On Dec 31, 2007 5:05 PM, Vijay Kiran Kamuju <infyquest at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > just like last year we did an audit of all the bugs in bugzilla.
> > I think this year also we should do the same, the bugs are growing
> > large  and older bugs are being neglected.
> > just wanted to say  that we need to check all the old open bugs, and
> > test them/ask the user for status.
> > Close the bug as Abandoned if there is no response. also test the
> > application yourself on latest git.
> > this is the work to be done. and we need volunteers for this work.
> >
> > need volunteers to clear up the mess(old abandoned bugs) in bugzilla
> >
> > Thanks,
> > vj
> >
> >
> >
>