Auto-expiring bugs are getting absurd

[Adam Williamson]

On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 16:09 -0600, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> David Timothy Strauss wrote:
> > That is not something I appear to have access to do. And, if I don't,
> > very few people do.

Rather a lot do, actually - see below.

> If you'd like to help update bugs then apply for the Bugzappers group in FAS and 
> you'll get editbugs access to be able to change the version in the future.

Please don't. This is not accurate. Bugzappers has been inactive for
years now. Packagers and QA team members (and possibly other groups I
don't know about) get editbugs privileges via automatic inheritance into
the 'fedorabugs' group, and 'fedorabugs' group admins can hand them out
on a case-by-case basis. 

Quite a lot of people have editbugs - I think it's in the hundreds or
thousands - but you do actually have to be a packager or QA person or
have some other specific reason to have editbugs privs. Just for a
single bug like this the simple thing is to get someone to do it.
Usually *someone* with editbugs privs will be CCed on a report and
should catch the comment and re-open it - as a packager, ajax certainly
has such privs, for instance, but I guess he was busy.

In this case David highlighted the issue and someone re-opened the
report almost immediately; doesn't seem like anything went terribly
wrong.

> As far as the bug is concerned, I'd create an upstream report. The Intel 
> developer is usually responsive to reports.

This is probably a good idea - our X devs do try and cover downstream
reports, but they're overworked, and upstream should have more people
able to respond.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net