On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 12:43:15 +0100 Niels de Vos <nde...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 04:31:38PM +0530, Atin Mukherjee wrote: > > Folks, > > > > While I was looking into glusterd backlogs I could see there are > > few BZs which were marked as "needinfo" on the reporter as the > > information was not sufficient enough for further analysis and the > > reporter hasn't gotten back with the required details. > > > > Ideally we should close these bugs saying inadequate information, > > however I am just wondering should we set a timeline for the waiting > > period like 1 or 2 weeks if not more and then close all such > > instances to reduce the count. > > > > What do you guys think? > > Sounds good to me. I do not care much about the 1 or 2 weeks, lets see > if others have an opinion about it. > > When you have some reactions, could you add a paragraph to the Bug > Triage guidelines [1] about this? It would be good to have a link in > there that lists bugs in NEW status, have a NEEDINFO set and their > last update was X weeks ago.
As a general thought about this kind of thing, I generally send "ping...?" type messages/email/BZ after a few days. eg 3 days-1 week, don't leave it too long. If no response by then, close it with a message like "Closing this as we don't have the info needed to properly investigate it. If you have time to get the info (as mentioned above) to us, please re-open this. :)" Seems to work fairly effectively. If someone know a better approach though, I'm happy to adopt that too. :) + Justin -- GlusterFS - http://www.gluster.org An open source, distributed file system scaling to several petabytes, and handling thousands of clients. My personal twitter: twitter.com/realjustinclift _______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@gluster.org http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
