RFC: KDE Bugzilla Bugs Expiration

Jaroslav Reznik jreznik at redhat.com
Mon Aug 3 11:25:45 BST 2015

----- Original Message -----
> On Friday, July 31, 2015 09:55:30 PM Thomas Lübking wrote:
> > On Freitag, 31. Juli 2015 19:29:53 CEST, Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> > > I also do not see the point in nagging the user after a certain period of
> > > time if nobody else ever cared to comment on the bug. Feels a bit like
> > > little kids asking "Are we there yet?" over and over again.
> > 
> > The idea is not only to get rid of cruft (bugs which "auto-fixed" either
> > implicitly by eg. code cleanups or as dupes) but also to remind developers
> > by resubmission (eg. when a bug fell off the table during high activity
> > periods)
> > > I do see the point in Daniel's proposal because the time a release goes
> > > EOL
> > > feels like a sensible point in time for asking whether the bug still
> > > exists.
> > - when do "unspecified" version bugs EOL?
> "Unspecified" version is IMO a silly thing in the first place. How is
> developer supposed to fix a bug if he does not know what version it happens
> with? I can see the point of it for wishes, but there I think it was agreed
> above that auto-closing should not affect those.
> > - when do "git" version bugs EOL?
> Hmm, good question. Maybe when a new version is released, all "git" bug
> reports should be moved to that version?

That's another process we have in Fedora - Rawhide rebase. At the point 
next release branches, we move all Rawhide bugs (except FutureFeature, RFEs
etc.) to the branched version as it was reported during the development of 
this version.

I was running it in Fedora for a few years, there was opposition we can't
close bugs as people would not report new bugs, sometimes I go through 
closed bugs and it's sad when it's something really simple. But we are all
humans, with other work to do and I think it's honest to reporters to tell
them sorry, we have limited resources. Also it requires some activity from
reporter and developer so many bugs are revived and even fixed in this
period. The other thing we try is to make reopening bugs as easy as possible,
explain what we do and why we do it. Of course, sometimes it's hard but I
think it's worth. It keeps Bugzilla clean.


Just as Kevin pointed out - it's much more easier in Fedora Bugzilla, as
it's one "product" developed at one time.

I used simple perl script that processed CSV exported from Bugzilla query.
I'm not sure if Bugzilla Rule Engine already hit upstream/KDE Bugzilla but
that could be another tool to help with cleanups...


More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list