On Mon, 12 Dec 2016, Martin Gräßlin wrote: > No, that would affect more. For example when looking for a bug report I go to > bugs.kde.org, Browse, kwin, component and then have a very small list of the > bugs for that component and can find the bug report. > > If all the nonsentical needsinfo bugs get in there and are not hidden by > default, it gets completely useless. > > Also I don't want to be at 1000 open bug reports in a year. Consider the > social impact of that if weekly-bug-summary stats include those bugs.
Fortunately, in that case, the weekly info page has disappeared from the front page... But yes, needinfo is a category that applies to a bug, it isn't just "I have a question for this person who reported or commented on this bug" -- it's this bug report is useless without further info. Now, if the status automatically changed back if info was added, that would be a nice improvement. > > Please note that in case of KWin a needsinfo means we never hear back in 99 > out of 100 cases and as I mentioned before we get several of those per day. My > bug workflow is completely focused only on marking bugs as needsinfo. Yes, > it's broken and yes for a high profile product like KWin it's even worse. > > So any change of the process must ensure that we are not swamped in useless > bug reports destroying all the default views and stats bugzilla provides. > > Overall from what I read in this thread so far about it, I'm quite against > this change. For me the focus is on getting those bugs away as I know that we > won't get the backtrace. Try asking Arch users for a backtrace... > I have to agree. Krita (+1075, -1210) isn't in the plasmashell category of bugs (+2341, -2101) per year yet, but it's more than kwin (+646, -680), and bugzilla's workflow needs to be as simple as possible to support me. I don't think changing the way needinfo works simplifies my workflow. -- Boudewijn Rempt | http://www.krita.org, http://www.valdyas.org