proposal for changes to auto-expiring bugs

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Thu, 6 Feb 2014 04:00:17 -0500
Matthew Miller <mattdm at fedoraproject.org> wrote:

> I would like to see one of the following, in order of preference:
> 
> 1.  Step one: when a release hits EOL, move the bugs to NEEDINFO with
>     a notice similar to the current one. (Essentially moving the
> current warning back a little bit.)
> 
>     Step one point five: I believe pretty much anyone can clear the
> NEEDINFO flag.
> 
>     Step two: when the *next* release hits EOL (and the release under
>     consideration has been EOL for approximately 6 months), move any
> bugs still in NEEDINFO to a new closed resolution like CLOSED:EOL,
> with a message similar to the current EOL note.

So, all those bugs stay open on the EOL version until EOL+1?

That seems poor to me. What do we do if someone clears needinfo and
says: Yes, this still affects me, I am running EOL release. Please fix
it.

We cannot, the EOL release is closed, no more updates or support. 

How does leaving it open there help?

>     EOL wouldn't be visibile as an available status for bugzilla
> users to select when closing a bug in the interface, so it does not
> add to UI clutter, but also makes it easy for us to do reports
> distinguishing between intentional and eol closure.

Is this possible?
     
>     This gives a much longer timeframe where we're waiting for input,
> so by the time we actually close, the release has been EOL for a
> decent while (rather than now, at the "I just got around to
> updating!" point).
> 
>     This does risk some false positives (negatives? whatever) where
> NEEDINFO is cleared with "works for me" but the bug not closed, but
> that seems like a less serious problem.

Yeah, thats another issue with this... they would stick around in that
case until the maintainer or someone came in and cleared them. 
 
> 2.  As #1, but with no new CLOSED:EOL resolution. Instead, use
> WONTFIX or and add a ClosedEOL keyword automatically. This is uglier
> than the above but requires no bugzilla change.
>     
> 3.  As #1, but just leave bugs in NEEDINFO state forever.
> 
>     This would possibly require maintainers to update their searches /
>     filters to leave out NEEDINFO bugs, or at least NEEDINFO bugs
> from older releases.

It would also be misleading, IMHO. 

"Hey reporter, I need info to fix this" 

"Here you go, here's the info you wanted from my Fedora 7 machine,
please provide update"     

kevin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20140206/ca4df0ff/attachment.sig>