A couple of changes to note

[Scott Kitterman]

On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 16:34:55 -0500 Greg Grossmeier <greg.grossmeier at gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu at kitterman.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 15:48:52 -0500 Greg Grossmeier
>> <greg.grossmeier at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>There was a decision made to not actually mark "expired" bugs as
>>>invalid as, I believe, there was some vocal opposition to it.  So
>>>Ubuntu has been one of the projects to "[disable] bug expiry are part
>>>of the bug expiration process."
>>>
>>>This page [0] will list all bugs that are 'expirable' and is linked to
>>>from the main Ubuntu bugs page on Launchpad.
>>>
>> Given that Ubuntu has already decided it doesn't want bugs to automatically
>> be invalidated after a period of time, the notion that triagers should
>> automatically mark bugs invalid after a set period of time seems odd to me.
>
>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.
>
>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.
>
>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.

Unfortunately the topic spilled over into QA without the background, so I'm still a bit in the dark about what exactly the current topic is?

I commonly see well described, valid bugs get marked incomplete with a question like "Can you stil reproduce this ..." and then marked invalid if there is no reply.  This is throwing away perfectly good bugs and should stop.  It also dismisses the entire class of intermittent bugs as unimportant.  I remain strongly against the idea of automatic expiration.

We need less expiring, not more.

Scott K