On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 03:56:28 -0700, Andrew Farris wrote: > I understand very clearly what you're saying, Then show it. > > few packages with hundreds or thousands of bugs each. They make up the > > big pile of bugs that ask for automation -- the thousands of bugs you > > consider relevant. > > Right, and as a 'whole' those are alot of bugs. You seem to be saying that > because the database CAN filter them by product that somehow reduces the total > number of individual, old, stale, possibly irrelevant bugs stuck in the > database. Here you show that you don't get it. I won't comment on the second sentence above, because it's a wrong conclusion that doesn't make sense in my point of view. But do notice that the total bug count does not matter. > Bugs that were filed against rawhide but have no clear way to > determine what product they really were targeted for... other than a date of > filing and the bugzilla number range (for instance the fact that most F9 rawhide > bugs are > 41xxxx). Not my fault. Rawhide always was "Fedora Core" version "devel". > Just because a certain component only has 10 bugs vs. 1000 bugs of another does > not mean that those few bugs are meaningful. If half of them are filed against > an EOL product, and the bugs cannot be reproduced in a current product, then the > bugs have no purpose. If a person has to sort through all those bugs how are > they to determine whether they have a purpose? Answer: ask the maintainer and > the reporter to decide 1) has a purpose, 2) has no purpose. Case 1) bug stays > open, case 2) bug closes after 30 days. Ask the maintainer. Good idea. Maintainer doesn't respond and continues to ignore the bugs for unknown reasons. Bad idea, because bug is closed automatically. > > That doesn't mean you've got to touch all other > > packages, too, and auto-close their tickets in an automated way. You > > only do this if you don't care about bugs at all, if you are annoyed > > that users submit problem reports and expect you to evaluate them. > > Wrong. You do that when you 'no longer' care about that particular bug. > Someone may have cared about the bug when it had a purpose; the maintainer may > not have been able to deal with it then, perhaps the component was orphaned and > noone was maintaining it for a little while. Lots of reasons could exist for > the bug becoming stale. Are you kidding? You clearly are the wrong person to discuss this with. All that matters is to find out *why* a bug was not dealt with. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
