RFC: KDE Bugzilla Bugs Expiration

[Ingo Klöcker]

On Friday 31 July 2015 12:00:22 Allen Winter wrote:
> On Friday, July 31, 2015 04:01:37 PM Thomas Lübking wrote:
> > On Freitag, 31. Juli 2015 14:05:09 CEST, laurent Montel wrote:
> > >> Especially for KDE PIM, given the size of the userbase and the amount
> > >> of
> > >> developers (3), bugs often take more than a year to get to and
> > >> to be fixed.
> > > 
> > > +1
> > > As Daniel wrote we have a lot of bug and a very small team.
> > > So we can't able to fix bug in 1 year.
> > > And I don't want to see all bugs closed after 1 year because it's useful
> > > to
> > > read all bug and sometime it takes me some months/years to fix bugs.
> > 
> > Wishes:
> > -------
> > should *never* be closed automatically - either a Human declares them
> > WONTFIX or it's "patches welcome" - they may however be resubmissioned
> > again once a year "is this actually reasonable?" so a developer can say
> > "what a bullshit of an idea" and close it ;-)
> > 
> > Bugs:
> > -----
> > should get regular (every 6 months after inactivity?) updates like "is
> > this still an issue", setting them "WAITING FOR INFO" and if not
> > responded within the next month (and reopened) be closed "WORKS FOR ME"
> > This will eg. remind developers to "oh, yes - I fixed a dupe of this 3
> > month ago, totally forgot about this one".
> > 
> > 
> > Autoclosing a bug that maybe has not ever even been touched by a developer
> > is a blunt offense and teaches users to either start nagging (in fear of
> > getting their bug closed) or being frustrated (to avoid 4-letter words
> > ;-)
> > 
> > Also "fixing" issues by ignoring them is really bad style.
> 
> agree
> dvartil's suggestion to follow the fedora model, in combination with the
> 6month nag seems pretty good.

I do not see the point in implementing both. 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.

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.


Regards,
Ingo
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20150731/6eead06c/attachment.sig>