On Fr Januar 4 2008, Jon Stanley wrote: > I can put some time this weekend into closing out old bugs, however, > before doing so, I wanted to make sure that our messaging is crystal > clear. What I had been doing for kernel bugs is placing them in > NEEDINFO_REPORTER and asking if the problem still existed, etc after > manually reviewing the bugs (some I changed to a current release > because it was mentioned in comments, but not in the version > metadata). However, this won't scale - there's no way that I or > anybody else can reasonably review 3600 bugs for ones that are > incorrectly tagged. This leaves us with ~9000 bugs (F7, F8, and > rawhide) to deal with (still a monumental task). I propose doing > something similar with rawhide bugs that haven't been touched in ~6 > months, not sure of the number of those, haven't looked yet. Here's > the proposed comment to WONTFIX these. I want to get the most input > possible before doing this: I would like it more when first every bug gets marked NEEDINFO_REPORTER and ask him whether or not the problem still exists and in case it does, to adjust the version of the Bug report or close it with e.g. currentrelease. In case the reporter did not respond within two weeks, ping him via bugzilla and then another two weeks later, close the bug with WONTFIX or INSUFFICANT_DATA. This is at least a little better bug reporter experience. This is more or less what I did when I started to comaintain some packages, that had several bugs and the maintainers too little time. Regards, Till
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.