On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 15:12 +0000, Justin Mason wrote: > (cc'ing Mark Thomas, the ASF bugzilla guru)
> > 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.) Was too lazy to check this before, just did -- turns out these are neatly separated. All bugs with Target Milestone 3.1.10 are RESO FIXED, the only NEW one is targeted for 3.1.11. Trivial to get rid of the latter, given 3.1.10 has not been released yet, and there are no imminent plans to do so. > > * 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. *nod* Closing bugs tends to trigger more attention from the reporter than asking. Quite often the reporter just forgets to add a "can't reproduce any more" comment. Closing the bug, which sends out another mail poking the reporter, frequently even results in exactly that note being added late, agreeing. In other bugzillas, anyway. ;) > > 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? IMHO it makes even sense to go further, and to either REOPEN valid bugs (hey, an open bug is a reminder, isn't it?) or properly close bugs that won't be fixed / worked on. > > 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 ;) Hey! guenther -- char *t="[EMAIL PROTECTED]"; main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1: (c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
