From kde-community Fri Nov 16 10:15:04 2018 From: Jaroslaw Staniek Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 10:15:04 +0000 To: kde-community Subject: Re: Policy on stale bugs (was Re: Closing NEEDSINFO bugs after 30 days) Message-Id: X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-community&m=154236336222289 MIME-Version: 1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--000000000000167bc3057ac5739b" --000000000000167bc3057ac5739b Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 at 10:37, Luigi Toscano wrote: > Andrew Crouthamel ha scritto: > > I've been spending a lot of time browsing, searching, and filtering our > bugs > > in Bugzilla. One of the areas I've found that could use improvement, are > the > > NEEDSINFO bugs. Often, bugs are placed into this status, either awaiting > > additional information or backtraces, never to be updated again. We have > > NEEDSINFO bugs dating back to 2009. > > Hi, > the (semi)automated process which pings and then closes NEEDINFO bugs was > implemented, but I've noticed another policy which was never discussed (as > far > as I know) here: bugs opened for a while > Hi As a heavy user of NEEDINFO I am also not enthusiastic and asked by email for exclusion but no reaction so far. Bug reports that I work with can easily be 6 years old and this means nothing in the development speed that I face. In a commercial environment maybe it's different - so old reports are really invalid, but here now I only get more work - I need to resort to notification emails one by one, it will take months. Also e.g. if a bug has 10% of missing "NEEDSINFO" and dozen of comments with valid discussion and input, how can it be abandoned automatically based on time since the original report? I am not sure if we can assume it is of any help that valid bugs are set as resolved by non-project persons (who have never had a contact with a maintainer), without proper project knowledge. At least the bugs are not CLOSED so it's possible to query them. But how useful is to spend time on it? Please at least do not close them. We have to deal with the consequences with our users. Possibly facing decline of bug reports because they see they are resolved without proper action. I also think something else was not considered, what applies at least to projects I maintain: people do use old software and do not upgrade especially on Linux e.g. due to the misunderstood thing called LTS. Hence they face with problems that are discussed in these old bug reports. The fact that old software is unmaintained does not mean that the report, convert into new reports or tasks for newer software versions, for the docs, and so on. If we automatically set bugs as resolved I seen that as a disservice for the project. > I disagree with this policy, and I'm not alone (at least another > maintainer > asked for his product to be excluded): > - not all projects distinguished between CONFIRMED and UNCONFIRMED (now > REPORTED), so it's possible that a perfectly valid bug or request > (especially > requests) seems stale. You may say that it's easy to flip the status > again. > I'd say that it's a unneeded step. > - at most the script could add a new comment asking for updates, but not > immediately change the status out of the blue. > - as mentioned, it was not discussed. > > Please disable it for now, or just enable it for projects who explicitly > wants > it for now. > > -- > Luigi > > > > -- regards, Jaroslaw Staniek KDE: : A world-wide network of software engineers, artists, writers, translators : and facilitators committed to Free Software development - kde.org KEXI: : A visual database apps builder - kexi-project.org calligra.org/kexi twitter.com/kexi_project facebook.com/kexi.project t.me/kexi_project Qt Certified Specialist: : linkedin.com/in/jstaniek --000000000000167bc3057ac5739b Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 at 10:37, Luigi Toscano <luigi.toscano@tiscali.it= > wrote:
Andrew Crouthamel ha sc= ritto:
> I've been spending a lot of time browsing, searching, and filterin= g our bugs
> in Bugzilla. One of the areas I've found that could use improvemen= t, are the
> NEEDSINFO bugs. Often, bugs are placed into this status, either awaiti= ng
> additional information or backtraces, never to be updated again. We ha= ve
> NEEDSINFO bugs dating back to 2009.

Hi,
the (semi)automated process which pings and then closes NEEDINFO bugs was <= br> implemented, but I've noticed another policy which was never discussed = (as far
as I know) here: bugs opened for a while

Hi
As a heavy user of=C2=A0NEEDINFO=C2=A0=C2=A0I am also not enthusiastic a= nd asked by email for exclusion but no reaction so far.=C2=A0

Bug reports that I work with can easily be 6 year= s old and this means nothing in the development speed that I face. In a com= mercial environment maybe it's different - so old reports are really in= valid, but here now I only get more work - I need to resort to notification= emails one by one, it will take months.
Also e.g. if a bu= g has 10% of missing "NEEDSINFO" and dozen of comments with valid= discussion and input, how can it be abandoned automatically based on time = since the original report?
I am not sure if we can assume = it is of any help that valid bugs are set as resolved by non-project person= s (who have never had a contact with a maintainer), without proper project = knowledge.=C2=A0

At least the bugs a= re not CLOSED so it's possible to query them. But how useful is to spen= d time on it?
Please at least do not close them. We have t= o deal with the consequences with our users. Possibly facing decline of bug= reports because they see they are resolved without proper action.

I also think something else was not cons= idered, what applies at least to projects I maintain: people do use old sof= tware and do not upgrade especially on Linux e.g. due to the misunderstood = thing called LTS. Hence they face with problems that are discussed in these= old bug reports. The fact that old software is unmaintained does not mean = that the report, convert into new reports or tasks for newer software versi= ons, for the docs, and so on. If we automatically set bugs as resolved I se= en that as a disservice for the project.


I disagree with this policy, and I'm not alone (at least another mainta= iner
asked for his product to be excluded):
- not all projects distinguished between CONFIRMED and UNCONFIRMED (now REPORTED), so it's possible that a perfectly valid bug or request (espe= cially
requests) seems stale. You may say that it's easy to flip the status ag= ain.
I'd say that it's a unneeded step.
- at most the script could add a new comment asking for updates, but not immediately change the status out of the blue.
- as mentioned, it was not discussed.

Please disable it for now, or just enable it for projects who explicitly wa= nts
it for now.

--
Luigi





--
=
regards, Jaroslaw Staniek

KDE:
: A world-wi= de network of software engineers, artists, writers, translators
: and fa= cilitators committed to Free Software development - kde.org
KEXI:
: A visual database apps buil= der -=C2=A0kexi-proj= ect.org=C2=A0cal= ligra.org/kexi
--000000000000167bc3057ac5739b--