Massive bug expiration spree (Restoring all bugs to their previous status)

[Curtis Hovey]

On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 17:03 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Curtis Hovey writes ("Re: Massive bug expiration spree (Restoring all bugs to their 	previous status)"):
> > We will perform a public test on staging with the revised expiration
> > rules. Launchpad users can see the results, and provide additional
> > feedback that we will incorporate into the rules. We will not run the
> > bug expiration process in production until the community agrees the
> > process is right.
> 
> For what it's worth, I think the approach of expiring bugs
> automatically in this way is misguided.
> 
> That is to say, I think the right process is this one:
> 
>   0.  All bugs are exempt

That is true. That is the only acceptable behaviour. Fixing the defects
regarding the duplicates, and adjusting the time rules should make the
community happy.

I say 'should', because in examining the what went wrong, it is apparent
that many users are using the status Incomplete to mean something other
than 'This report cannot be confirmed to be a bug, additional
information is needed'.

I should rename this feature to the Incomplete Expiration Process, and
it cannot be enabled until users have change the status on their bugs to
one Confirmed, In Progress, ....

-- 
__Curtis C. Hovey_________
http://launchpad.net/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/launchpad-users/attachments/20070928/eaca25ec/attachment.pgp