bugzilla triage madness :-/

[Michael Schwendt]

On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 13:50:57 -0700, Andrew Farris wrote:

> Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > Le vendredi 04 avril 2008 à 05:41 -0700, Andrew Farris a écrit :
> > 
> >> But what could be gained from trying to solve bugs in software that is long 
> >> modified to be unrecognizable from the state it was in then... 
> > 
> > Packaging problems persist even if the underlying software was updated
> > many times.
> 
> Maybe, but not necessarily.  Lots of packaging issues get solved without a bug 
> and  it may have just been overlooked when it was solved.  How is anyone going 
> to know this without spending an inordinate amount of time deciding if the old 
> bug still exists?  Who is better equipped to do that than the original reporter? 
>   If they don't have time, fine... let the bug get closed.

No, thanks. Too many bugs => "inordinate amount of time" (your theory).
The bot confronts me with a collection of bugs and sets a short
deadline. I regret that I've submitted them. The Fedora School of Bug
Mismanagement teaches me to let them rest in peace this time, because
that's the only way I can avoid fighting against a bot that tries to put
additional work onto my shoulders from time to time. Retest against FC6,
retest against F7, retest against F8, retest against F9. It's insulting.

> > Next time do not flood reporters flood component owners (with a 'can we
> > close this yes/no ?' if no answer do not close is assumed) since
> > component owners are the ones asking to push stuff under the carpet and
> > should at least perform some activity to get their wish.

+1

> It is the component owners and packagers that already are flooded with too many 
> old bugs to get through, now you suggest they get requests for individual 
> attention on each?  That sounds like a great plan for Congress, not for open source.
> 

Now bug reporters are flooded, too. ;)