Subject: Re: BugZilla - stale bugs
From: Sam TH (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Dec 12 2001 - 08:21:11 CST
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 09:17:03AM +0100, Jesper Skov wrote:
> On Tue, 2001-12-11 at 20:57, Paul Egli wrote:
> > > For the latter class, I've considered adding a new CLOSED/NEEDINFO state
> > > to bugzilla. Sam, do you know hard it would be to do so? Meanwhile, I'll
> > > be using CLOSED/INVALID.
> > >
> > > Note that this does not mean that we ignore those bugs. If you find one
> > > of your bugs closed as stale because you've been busy or out of time,
> > > simply reopen it, adding the necessary information to make it a valid
> > > bug again.
> > >
> > > It's simply a way to keep the BugZilla backlog from getting out of hand:
> > > skimming the same old set of bugs when looking for stuff to do is very
> > > tiring (and rather frustrating, actually). The developers' time is
> > > limited - this is a way to forcibly shift some of the BugZilla triage to
> > > the users who actually report and care about the bugs.
> > This also sounds good to me. Anything else we can do to clean up the bug
> > database would make it easier for a QA man like me to get back in on the
> > project (e.g. fix such annoyances as the one Piotr mentioned in his e-mail.
> > There seems to be lots of these quirks lingering in our version of bugzilla).
> I'd like Sam to tell us - he should know the effort involved with an
Adding new states might be possible. However, easier than that would
be to create a new keyword (say, needinfo) and add that to bugs that
are closed/invalid for that reason. Would that fit your needs?
sam th --- email@example.com --- http://www.abisource.com/~sam/
OpenPGP Key: CABD33FC --- http://samth.dyndns.org/key
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Wed Dec 12 2001 - 08:21:13 CST