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