Petr Mladek schrieb:
This will cause many mails only in the first round. It will be normal
level of mails if we do this regularly.
Hi,
That's an illusion, total number of mails will always be the the same.
Only the number of mails per cleanup will be smaller.
BTW, I dislike the "noise" the discussed "3 strikes" solution will
cause. I'm thinking about a different solution:
Strike 1:
Query will find NEEDINFO bugs untouched for a long time and fulfilling
some additional "hopeless criteria".
Reporter's of these bugs will get polite mail with request to contribute
additional info that we will have to close the bug without additional
info. This mailing only send mails to reporters, will not change any
info in the Bugs, so that data as "Days since last change" and similar
will be available for other queries. List of related bugs will be
published on QA list
That's not a big technical challenge, I think I can create required
tools (what can be used fur further actions in future easily) within 1 hour.
Strike 2 After 7 Days:
Query for all Bugs for what mails have been sent in Strike 1:
- Changed since mail (probably by reporter): QA will take care
- NOT changed: Mass close via Bugzilla with polite message
"Sorry ..., but feel free to reopen if ..."
What do think?
BTW, I would not do that too often. Sometimes it's simply not easy for
reporter to contribute desired info, for example because bug is not
simple to reproduce. May be such bugs can be marked by entry of a QA
"Mentor" in QA contact or similar.
CU
Rainer
_______________________________________________
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org
Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
