On Sun, 05 Dec 2010 10:58:25 +1000, Brendan wrote: > > > On 12/05/2010 10:30 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > For issues that persist, a different user will [need to] open a new > > ticket. And who will pay attention and notice that it's the same issue > > that was closed WONTFIX N*6 months ago? > Understood - but there is a lot of useful info captured in the earlier > bugs which is lost when closed. Apparently you misunderstood me here. It is _bad_ that something is lost. Not just "a lot of useful info" is lost, also the bug's history is disturbed/falsified. Since the tickets have not been dealt with in six months or more than that, there isn't any magic workhorse that will deal with them when they - stay closed, - are reopened, - are filed as duplicates by somebody else. Double-bad for software, which hasn't changed between Fedora N and Fedora N+1. The automated closing of related tickets doesn't help with discovering poorly maintained packages or bug-infested software releases. > There are a number of reporters who file > a bug and assume other people are experiencing the same problem and then > terminate their involvement, which is fine. However, if they see that > the bug is still open, they are more likely to confirm/deny the > existence of the original problem in a later release. Any numbers on that? How many tickets are reassigned during the 30 days? How many tickets are reopened after the 30 days? How many tickets stay closed? > There are so many open bugs - anything which helps us zappers out to > maintain some kind of continuity is very welcome in my book. What's a > few emails every 6 months? It isn't "a few". And IMO, the request to retest ought to come much earlier, at least for tickets filed for F-N when F-N+1 is released. -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
