On Thu, 6 Feb 2014 04:00:17 -0500
Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
