On Sat, 2012-01-28 at 12:15 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:13:47 -0800, AW (Adam) wrote: > > > On Fri, 2012-01-27 at 19:16 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > > On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 09:55:14 -0600, BWI (Bruno) wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:56:39 -0600, BWI (Bruno) wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Orphan xmms-pulse > > > > > > > > > > > > Since I actually use xmms, I'm taking xmms-pulse. > > > > > > > > > > http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2012-January/161136.html > > > > > > > > Thanks for the heads up. I checked for bugs before picking it up and > > > > didn't see any. > > > > > > They are hidden under the carpet: > > > > > > http://tinyurl.com/84z7rlv > > > > > > That happens when bug-zapper scripts close tickets without anyone paying > > > attention at all. :-( > > > > There are no scripts involved, > > The bugzilla account called "Bug Zapper" is a human-being not a script? > Unbelievable. We run a search to identify the bugs to be closed (it's a stored search in Bugzilla), manually weed the list, and then send the list to engineering services to do the actual closing. > > and we do pay attention. > > Where? How? It may be true that some bug zapper human-beings care about a > few components, but none of them have paid attention with regard to XMMS. > The script has started a loop of "warning to close, then closing" the > tickets, and it required somebody else to pay attention. > > Examples, and there are more like these: There's nothing wrong with any of these examples. The agreed policy of the project is that bugs for old releases which aren't updated for new releases get closed. Just because you confirmed a bug was valid against a release that was current in 2008 does not mean it should still be open in 2012. For the bug to stay open it should be re-tested with a currently-supported version and updated to that version. > At least 'c)' is missing as a catch-all, Adam. > > c) In fact, I've reopened/updated several tickets related to xmms* a few > times, but this has not helped at all because the packages in Fedora have > not been in a state one could call "maintained". Packages require someone > who listens in bugzilla. Yes, they do. Still - how is that relevant to this at all? If there's no-one present who cares about the package, the bugs aren't going to get fixed whether they're open or closed. > Your 'a)' is wishful-thinking. It is true for some bugs Then it's not wishful thinking, is it? > , but I specifically > referred to issues in xmms* packages. You may have used those as examples, but the discussion was about the bug retirement policy in general. > And with 'b)', you're making it too > easy. At least the packager ought to use the self-packaged software from > time to time. There have been some very obvious problems in them. Then we have a problem with the packager, yes? Not a problem with the bug retirement process. > Worse are those tickets where nobody but the Bug Zapper script is active. > You should be thankful for every user, who updates/reopens a ticket, but > users won't do that too often, if it turns into a fight against a script > that automatically closes tickets. Then, again, the problem is not the closure process, but a lack of input from the person who's meant to be maintaining the package. Leaving the bug open would not magically result in that person showing up. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
