On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 07:30:44AM -0500, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> I'm not sure adding a new EOL status would be ok for Bugzilla guys, as far
> as I know, there were some efforts to cut down BZ statuses (ON_DEV for
I checked with bugzilla people, and Simon Green says that making a EOL
resolution
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 11:06:07AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> So, all those bugs stay open on the EOL version until EOL+1?
>
> That seems poor to me. What do we do if someone clears needinfo and
> says: Yes, this still affects me, I am running EOL release. Please fix
> it.
>
> We cannot, the EOL
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 09:49:26AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Your whole proposal more or less *is* the heuristic 'don't autoclose
> bugs with comments', because of how needinfo works in RH bugzilla. It's
> not a status (as you imply by writing NEEDINFO) but a flag. If you set
> the needinfo f
On Feb 6, 2014 11:06 AM, "Kevin Fenzi" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2014 04:00:17 -0500
> Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> > I would like to see one of the following, in order of preference:
> >
> > 1. Step one: when a release hits EOL, move the bugs to NEEDINFO with
> > a notice similar to the current
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014 04:00:17 -0500
Matthew Miller wrote:
> I would like to see one of the following, in order of preference:
>
> 1. Step one: when a release hits EOL, move the bugs to NEEDINFO with
> a notice similar to the current one. (Essentially moving the
> current warning back a little
On Thu, 2014-02-06 at 04:00 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Additionally, but requiring some development, we could add some heuristics
> like: don't autoclose bugs with many incoming duplicate pointers, or
> possibly (as David suggests) bugs with comments, or bugs which have been
> reopened, or (he
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 07:30:44AM -0500, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> > 2. As #1, but with no new CLOSED:EOL resolution. Instead, use WONTFIX
> > or and add a ClosedEOL keyword automatically. This is uglier than
> > the above but requires no bugzilla change.
> I'm not sure adding a new EOL st
- Original Message -
> On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 02:50:59PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > The problem is that no-one seems to come up with an alternative that's
> > any better. Leaving bugs on EOL versions open to rot away and be ignored
> > is no use. We *could* give everyone privs to re
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 02:50:59PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> The problem is that no-one seems to come up with an alternative that's
> any better. Leaving bugs on EOL versions open to rot away and be ignored
> is no use. We *could* give everyone privs to re-open closed bugs, I
> guess, and I p
