(cc'ing Mark Thomas, the ASF bugzilla guru) > Hey guys, > > I actually should be doing something else, but due to lack of caffeine, > some recent-ish comments and the fact I now got more permission bits, I > just poked a little bit at bugzilla. Couple things... > > > * Target Milestones > > It appears upcoming Target Milestone releases are sorted at the top in > the drop-down. Someone (sorry, don't recall, honestly :) mentioned in a > bug comment he couldn't find TM 3.2.6. It's still at the top. ;) > > I just moved 3.1.1[01] from the top-most positions way down where they > belong, since they likely will never be released and there's no much > point in assigning a bug to that TM. If this was bad, please feel free > to hit me hard.
+1 fine by me. > Do we even need / want these two TMs? There are a few bugs, mostly > fixed. Does it make sense to keep these, or should I even plain delete > them after moving to a Target Milestone that is likely to become a > release? > > https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/buglist.cgi?target_milestone=3.1.10&target_milestone=3.1.11 I think we'd have to agree that there'll never be another 3.1.x; it's not _entirely_ beyond the realms of possibility that there might be another one. (I don't think we need _two_ of them though.) > * Needinfo bugs > > Yeah, this concept doesn't exist in our bugzilla yet. However, the > problem of identifying old, rotting and probably obsolete bugs that need > additional information by the reporter has been brought up on the users > list. > > Since a NEEDINFO Status (as featured by GNOME bugzilla) is a custom > hack, we can't get that. Bummer. A "needinfo" keyword could easily do > the same, though. This would help in searches and identifying stale bugs > in the future. Here's where I'd be curious what Mark's opinion is, since he's the maintainer of our BZ installation... > Applying this to existing bugs would require quite some triaging effort. > And most of those probably can be closed due to missing information > anyway. > > How have these been handled so far? Is there any agreed upon procedure > as to when closing bugs without response? Thoughts? Well, I generally have closed with a one-line comment along the lines of "No response from reporter; feel free to reopen with further info, if desired." that seems to work, often enough. > Oh, and please do not use Resolution LATER and REMIND. :) They are > deprecated and considered harmful upstream. Actually, they are just a > mind boggling logic flaw in the first place -- neither is a resolution. > > Do we have direct access to the database? In that case I'd propose to > get id of them in the UI, which at least prevents them from being used > any further. Mark -- thoughts? > Just venting some ideas, trying not to create yet another todo list I'll > forget about anyway. No, I'm not asking to become the SA bugmaster. ;-) hmmmm ;) --j.
