Bug backlog - now and future. Some proposals.

[Todd Denniston]

Bill Davidsen wrote, On 03/15/2008 05:37 PM:
> Small comments thru the text, rant follows.
> 
> Jon Stanley wrote:
>> Hear ye, hear ye!  At the BugZappers meeting that occurred today,
>> March 12, 2008, two proposals for dealing with the backlog of bugs,
<SNIP>
> 
>> To that end, I am proud to present two proposals, One has to do with
>> dealing with the backlog that we have now, and the other has to do
>> with making sure we never get into this situation again -- ever. We
>> believe that these proposals are the right thing to do, and now is the
>> right time to do them, right before a release.
>>
> I would suggest that the time to fix them is now, *instead* of a 
> release. To clear the backlog by *fixing* the bugs, not by writing 
> clever scripts to mark them CLOSED:WONTFIX or send notes to bug 
> submitters to update the version to keep the bug open (unfixed) for 
> another two releases.
> 
<SNIP>
>>
>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping
>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JohnPoelstra/BugzillaExtremeMakeOver
>>
> I read them, and I find lots of ways to make unfixed bugs exit bugzilla, 
> but no indication that bugs will actually be fixed in a more timely 
> fashion.
> 
> I think you need a "deadline scheduler" approach, if a bug in a package 
> isn't fixed by some (reasonable) time after it's reported, it should be 
> evaluated, and unless it's waiting on external info it should be marked 
> as TRIVIAL, AVOIDABLE, or RECOVERABLE (all FIXLATER), or mark the 
> package as UNMAINTAINED. Then release the UNMAINTAINED packages as a 
> separate group in the next release, the way "extras" used to be.
> 
> I believe that maintainers would be motivated to avoid having their 
> packages marked UNMAINTAINED, and if they aren't, the description is 
> accurate. You would hate to drop a package, but having one with serious 
> bugs is worse. You can define "serious" any way you want, users know 
> "doesn't work" when they report it.
> 
> In other words, if the package is still usable by most users, document 
> the bug as trivial and live with it, and if a major bug isn't fixed, the 
> reason doesn't matter. Developers enjoy adding new features more than 
> bug fixing, or become too busy to maintain. Good intentions are nice, 
> but they don't buy you a beer.
> 

+1, to a point.

If the "maintainer" has (reasonably) asked for more information and it has 
been 1 release with no more information coming in, _then_ it would be 
reasonable to close the bug.


-- 
Todd Denniston
Crane Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC Crane)
Harnessing the Power of Technology for the Warfighter