reporting bugs upstream : nothing on the wiki?

["Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"]

  On 07/13/2010 08:42 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> And we gain absolutely nothing either by having bugzappers close tickets
> with scripts instead of contributing real triaging.

These scripts are there for a reason.

Mostly to provide some interaction to new reporters.
Lowering their expectation, showing some activity on the report etc.
They dont solve the underlying problem of no bug activity but atleast 
it's better than no feedback to new reporters.

> If you have means to determine "components that get zero to no
> maintenance and reponse in bugzilla", please use them more wisely instead
> of ignoring such a problem until dist EOL.

We actually can and perhaps do but don't publish it however that's 
something that infra can answer.
( I suspect making this public would require some discussion in the 
community as in maintainers might not be willing to show the world their 
bugzilla stats )

If we are not we kinda must ( amongst other things ), to be able to 
determine where to effectively allocate QA resources.

The Fedora Virtualization community shows an perfect example on how this 
should be done ( atleast one way of doing it ).

By looking at the http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Virtualization_bugs wiki 
page we can see varius bugzilla stats on all the components in the 
Virtualization Group and they do share the script that does it ( on 
bottom of the page ).

It does however not show how long it took from the bug status to go from 
new to open to assign and if the bug EOL and how long it took for a 
reporter to answer needinfo request etc. so we could keep stats on how 
much time the average workflow of a bug takes and inform all parties 
involved in the workflow what to expect from each other.  ( Triaging 
takes x time. Reporter takes y time. Fix for the bug z. time ).

JBG