bugs audit volunteers require

[Jan Zerebecki]

On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 09:59:52PM -0700, James Hawkins wrote:
> On Jan 5, 2008 7:02 PM, Jan Zerebecki <jan.wine at zerebecki.de> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 01:19:35AM -0800, Dan Kegel wrote:
> > > >> Maybe add a resolution of NEEDMOREINFO?
> > > >
> > > >There is no need to add one more reason for a bug resolution IMHO,
> > > >INVALID with appropriate comment does the job.
> > >
> > > INVALID seems harsh, it may scare away novice reporters.
> >
> > Yes if it's used without waiting for an answer (or even even more
> > without requesting further clarification) it might make one feel
> > shot down. And usually it's used too quickly. Most bug
> > resolutions should probably be only done when some care or
> > communication was done to check that it's the correct resolution,
> > to avoid resolution ping-pong.
> >
> > > Do we want to make it easy to search for bugs stuck
> > > in a needmoreinfo kind of state?  If so, a keyword or state
> > > might be handy.
> >
> > I think a keyword would be appropriate. It would nicely fit with
> > the "Abandoned?" keyword: first add needmoreinfo, if no answer
> > for 6 month add "Abandoned?", after further 6 month resolve
> > abandoned.
> >
> 
> 12 months to close a bug as abandoned?  6 months is already too long
> for abandoned.  The policy has always been: if a reporter does not
> respond to an information request within X months, close the bug as
> abandoned.  We have 3843 bugs for Wine and the list is only getting
> larger.  This fear of closing bugs is only making the problem worse.
> People seem to forget that a user can always come back and reopen the
> bug report.

Afaik only selected users can reopen bugs. Users that can edit
bugs and the reporter can do that and if I remember correctly we
seem to want to also prevent the reporter from doing that.

Open bugs lingering in needmoreinfo or "Abandoned?" don't hurt.
Othoh closing bugs too quickly as invalid or abandoned may drive
bug reporters away which would hurt us in the long run.

If you'd just want to get less bugs we could have a special
permission for filing bugs and only let selected people who we
trust to report really useful bugs (though I think that is not
what we want).

Anyway the 12 month were only an example, I'm fine with 6 month.
I'm more concerned about closing bugs (e.g. as invalid) where
someone is active and disagrees.

It might make sense to rename "Abandoned?" to needmoreinfo, so
that one can key a bug as needmoreinfo and after x month with
that keyword and no response resolve it abandoned.

Though we probably don't want to use needmoreinfo on bugs where
it's possible for someone to retest if the bug is still there
(e.g. where there is a download for the application and the bug
is described sufficiently to check for it oneself).


Jan