A couple of changes to note

[Scott Kitterman]

On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 06:53:44 -0500 Mackenzie Morgan <macoafi at gmail.com> 
wrote:
>On Wednesday 04 March 2009 5:26:35 am Wolfger wrote: 
>> Speaking as somebody who does a lot of invalidating of old bugs, I
>> have to say that responses from the submitter are the exception, not
>> the rule. Maybe (and I'm being generous) 10% of these bugs see life
>> again. So this (proposed?) change only adds to the work load without
>> providing any extra value. Under the 4-weeks-to-dead system, a triager
>> only touches the bug once, and if the bug is still alive, the
>> submitter touches the bug once. Under this new system, triagers will
>> have to touch the bug twice if they are dead (don't play with dead
>> bugs!), but the process for it's-not-dead-yet bugs hasn't actually
>> changed at all.
>
>Leaving a bug which has not had a response alone, in incomplete-without-
>response mode does not hurt anything.  They don't *need* to be closed. 
>Prompting the user to supply more of the needed input can be good.  Going 
>through the list of bugs last touched 28 days ago and killing them makes 
>reporters feel ignored. The bugs aren't dead til you invalidate them.  
Someone 
>that can reproduce it can supply the needed input.  Once you invalidate, 
it 
>goes off everyone's radar and stops showing up in bug searches, so people 
who 
>can reproduce have to go through submitting a whole new bug when they 
could've 
>just added the one missing piece of information to the original. 
>
>Triaging's not about closing as many bugs as possible.  It's about 
improving 
>bug reports.  You could say "resolving" bugs, but "nevermind we don't want 
to 
>deal with you because you're not prompt enough" isn't really a resolution.
>
I missed the start of this thread (I guess it just spilled over from -bugs 
to -qa).  I'm curious what change is being proposed.

I generally echo what Mackenzie is saying.  I'd add that Launchpad has an 
auto-expire feature that Ubuntu should use if it wants bugs to expire after 
a certain period of no reply.  If the project has chosen not to use it/have 
a longer timeout, then I don't think triagers should feel obligated to fill 
the gap.

Scott K