Bug triage, or spam?

[Jesse Allen]

On 5/31/07, Tom Spear <speeddymon at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It's a problem to me, it may not be a problem to you, but that doesn't
> make it an invalid point.  Marcus and Dan have both said to keep
> going, I'm sure others here (I'm not trying to speak for anyone, so
> someone else feel free to correct me if I am wrong) dont have any
> problem with my doing that either.
>
> And you miss the point as well, most new bugs that are marked resolved
> dont end up being closed on a case-by-case basis, which is why I am
> going back and doing that!
>
> Case in point: http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7885 has been
> resolved for over a month, why was it not closed?
> http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8373 has been resolved for 2
> weeks, same question applies.
>


Tom,

This is how I finalize bugs:

* When a bugs has decisively been fixed, by a merged patch, with test
cases, or reported by user been fixed, then I close it. If it's
decisively "not a wine bug" close invalid.
* When a bug is rumored to be fixed, forgotten, or simply doesn't
appear on your end, then probably resolve fixed, abandoned, or
worksforme appropriately.
* When the bug has been only set to resolved, and continues to have
erroneous activity (i.e. commenting from random visitors that don't
understand the report), then close it to discourage use of the bug.
* If it's a bug that I don't know anything about, I shouldn't touch it.

So the reason is, only "resolved" could maybe get revisited, and
"closed" I never want to see again. Other than that, it makes no sense
to me to close bugs unless there is some activity related to it (i.e.
it is proved that an uncertain fix has really been fixed and the issue
is done). Simply closing bugs worries me as does James. It really does
need to be case-by-case, so what we know you are doing is right.

Jesse