Massive bug expiration spree

[Jordan Mantha]

On 9/21/07, Mario Limonciello <superm1 at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm not too sure I agree with this massive expiration on the bug
> reports.  Just because there was no activity for 60 days doesn't make
> the bug invalid.  Lots of people have very large queues, and won't be
> getting to it for a while.  The bugs still do exist and this is making
> it appear as though they are insignificant or unnecessary.

Note that the bugs have to be inactive for 60 days *and* in the
Incomplete state. If we're just waiting for info from the reporter or
something that leaves it incomplete then 60 days without activity
seems reasonable.

The issue I see with this change is that people (including myself)
probably aren't using the Incomplete status properly. Perhaps we want
to move a Incomplete to Confirmed if we want to keep it around but
don't have enough info to get it to Triaged. LP devs, is this the
correct bug flow?

-Jordan

-Jordan