A couple of changes to note

[Wolfger]

On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Greg Grossmeier
<greg.grossmeier at gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree.  And because I agree, I would personally like this whole
> 'work flow' to be automated.  If a bug is expirable according to
> current requirements, have Launchpad Janitor post a "hey, this is old
> and untouched and incomplete, please respond," then wait the two
> weeks, then invalidate.

I'm OK with that.

> Yes, I am advocating to re-enable the auto-expiry feature of
> Launchpad.  As I believe that the percentage of incorrectly
> invalidated reports by a system like this will be low (I have no
> evidence for this, just a gut feeling), simply having a page that
> lists reports that have comments made to them AFTER Launchpad Janitor
> auto-expired them _should_ be enough to not lose valid reports.

The one big problem I see with this is the subgroups (Mozilla team is
prominent in my mind) that deviate from the standard Ubuntu rules for
bug status. Or course, if they could just assign their bugs to
somebody, and that would alleviate the problem.

> Of course, this is beyond the scope of the current topic, which is
> adding the extra step in invalidating bugs, which I am ok with.

I'm OK with it if it's automated, I oppose it if it adds extra work to
the already insufficient workforce.

-- 
Wolfger
http://wolfger.wordpress.com/
http://twitter.com/wolfger
http://identi.ca/wolfger

The world is a mess, and I just... need to rule it.