User:RBd/Workbench/Draft1

From The Document Foundation Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Next big NEEDINFO cleanup

In the following I will show the arguments I saw in the discussion on <libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org> from a (very) personel point of viewing.


Why?

The main goals of such an action should be to A) ease work for "Power Bugwranglers" B) leave clear, appropriate Bug status info C) Avoid misunderstanding for newbies

Contra:
A) I am not sure whether this mass closes bring any benefit. Experienced bug wranglers have Bugzilla queries selecting the bugs where they are able (and want) to contribute, and "NEEDINFO" + "Nothing happened last 180 day" is a very clear statement for a very simple query. No problems with that. B) Any change without review only will distort information


Pro:'
C) Bug wranglers with less experience might wast a lot of time to reanimate a dead end bug. I saw such activity last summer, but currently it's not my impression that there time is wasted. But may be I visit the wrong bugs. May be we can prevent them from doing so by closing the old NEEDINFO bugs. Closing a bug might be an effective wake up call for the reporter. If he simply forgot the bug or was disappointed because of few reaction, the close might be a reason to provide the requested info

Some Facts

Mass close in August 2012 effected more than 900 Bugs

I did a small sample (20 or so) before the mass close and found out that approximately 1/3 of them were real bugs and was able to reproduce them with an acceptable amount of work. If my research was representative we have had 300 bugs collateral damage what better should have been reviewed. The result of that examination has been confirmed more or less: After the mass close more than 300 Bugs became reopened because they were appropriate enhancement requests, Reporter delivered information or because of other reasons.