Bug Expiration Criteria

[Brian Murray]

On Sun, Jun 08, 2008 at 04:08:56PM +0100, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Christian Robottom Reis wrote on 06/06/08 22:30:
> > 
> > On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 02:28:30PM -0700, Brian Murray wrote:
> >...
> >> Should bugs with duplicates be eligible for expiration?
> > 
> > I guess the /with/ there was a bit understated. I am not sure of the
> > answer, though. In a way you want them to, because it could be a bug
> > that affected a variety of users but no longer does; on the other hand,
> > we can't really detect whether activity in the duplicates occurred.
> > Maybe it's safer to exclude them.
> >...
> 
> If a bug report should expire, it's because it lacks the necessary
> information for developers to work on it, and enough time has passed
> that nobody is likely to provide that information.
> 
> That a report has duplicates does not alter whether it has the necessary
> information for developers to work on it. So I don't see why that should
> make the report immune from expiry.
> 
> However, marking a duplicate of an Incomplete report gives a big bump to
> the probability that someone (especially someone involved with the
> duplicate report) will soon provide the necessary information in the
> original report.
> 
> Therefore, I think marking a duplicate of an Incomplete bug report
> should reset the timer back to 60 days.

That makes the most sense to me.
 
-- 
Brian Murray
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/launchpad-users/attachments/20080609/f86e9189/attachment.pgp