On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 1:12 AM Myriam Schweingruber wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 at 14:22, Harald Sitter wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 2:16 PM Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
>> >
>> > On vrijdag 16 november 2018 14:11:29 CET Harald Sitter wrote:
>> >
>> > > - human sets needsinfo
>> > > -
On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 at 14:22, Harald Sitter wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 2:16 PM Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> >
> > On vrijdag 16 november 2018 14:11:29 CET Harald Sitter wrote:
> >
> > > - human sets needsinfo
> > > - 15 days pass: bot posts reminder
> > > - reporter comments
> > > - N days
On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 2:40 PM Alexander Potashev wrote:
>
> пт, 16 нояб. 2018 г. в 16:35, Boudewijn Rempt :
> >
> > On vrijdag 16 november 2018 14:31:39 CET Alexander Potashev wrote:
> >
> > > You only considered to case when human sets NEEDSINFO. If NEEDSINFO is
> > > set by a script, we may
пт, 16 нояб. 2018 г. в 16:35, Boudewijn Rempt :
>
> On vrijdag 16 november 2018 14:31:39 CET Alexander Potashev wrote:
>
> > You only considered to case when human sets NEEDSINFO. If NEEDSINFO is
> > set by a script, we may have the same problem, would you suggest
> > implementing the same
On vrijdag 16 november 2018 14:31:39 CET Alexander Potashev wrote:
> You only considered to case when human sets NEEDSINFO. If NEEDSINFO is
> set by a script, we may have the same problem, would you suggest
> implementing the same behaviour?
We don't have the script setting NEEDSINFO, do we? At
пт, 16 нояб. 2018 г. в 16:22, Harald Sitter :
>
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 2:16 PM Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> >
> > On vrijdag 16 november 2018 14:11:29 CET Harald Sitter wrote:
> >
> > > - human sets needsinfo
> > > - 15 days pass: bot posts reminder
> > > - reporter comments
> > > - N days pass:
On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 2:16 PM Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
>
> On vrijdag 16 november 2018 14:11:29 CET Harald Sitter wrote:
>
> > - human sets needsinfo
> > - 15 days pass: bot posts reminder
> > - reporter comments
> > - N days pass: bug gets automatically dropped back to whatever the
> > previous
On vrijdag 16 november 2018 14:11:29 CET Harald Sitter wrote:
> - human sets needsinfo
> - 15 days pass: bot posts reminder
> - reporter comments
> - N days pass: bug gets automatically dropped back to whatever the
> previous state was?
Yes, that would be perfect! As far as I'm concerned, N can
The changes you see were due to me. The Status change was a convenience to me
for follow up, but as noted, has caused alarm. My apologies for that. I am
already in process of sending updates and resetting the status, but am doing so
in blocks to not spam anyone. Give it a few days and all will
(Pulling this back to the NEEDSINFO thread since it sounds unrelated
to what Luigi was writing about in the Policy on stale bugs thread)
On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 12:51 PM Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> I know it's well-meant, and it does help to get old bugs resolved -- but it
> really should use a
On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 10:37 AM Luigi Toscano wrote:
> Please disable it for now, or just enable it for projects who explicitly wants
> it for now.
As mentioned on IRC: everyone please note that unless a change was
made by bug-jani...@kde.org it was not actually done automatically (or
not that
On 16.11.2018 12:50, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
-- and worse, it makes me hesitate to put bugs in the NEEDINFO state.
Worse. Bugs that never have been in NEEDSINFO seem to automatically get
this state after some time of inactivity now.
On vrijdag 16 november 2018 10:37:08 CET Luigi Toscano wrote:
> the (semi)automated process which pings and then closes NEEDINFO bugs was
> implemented, but I've noticed another policy which was never discussed (as
> far as I know) here: bugs opened for a while
>
> I disagree with this policy,
Luigi Toscano ha scritto:
Andrew Crouthamel ha scritto:
I've been spending a lot of time browsing, searching, and filtering our bugs
in Bugzilla. One of the areas I've found that could use improvement, are the
NEEDSINFO bugs. Often, bugs are placed into this status, either awaiting
additional
On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 at 10:37, Luigi Toscano
wrote:
> Andrew Crouthamel ha scritto:
> > I've been spending a lot of time browsing, searching, and filtering our
> bugs
> > in Bugzilla. One of the areas I've found that could use improvement, are
> the
> > NEEDSINFO bugs. Often, bugs are placed into
Andrew Crouthamel ha scritto:
I've been spending a lot of time browsing, searching, and filtering our bugs
in Bugzilla. One of the areas I've found that could use improvement, are the
NEEDSINFO bugs. Often, bugs are placed into this status, either awaiting
additional information or backtraces,
Hi,
On Dienstag, 18. September 2018 22:17:08 CEST Nate Graham wrote:
> Thanks for taking the initiative on this, Andrew. I think everything you've
> laid out makes sense, and I like those messages. +1.
+1. This is very much appreciated. More below ...
>
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 12:56:09
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 13:23:19 -0700 Albert Astals Cid
wrote
> El dilluns, 17 de setembre de 2018, a les 20:01:15 CEST, Andrew Crouthamel
> va escriure:
> Unless we can check if there has been no comment after the comment that
> changed the status to NEEDSINFO, it that's
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 13:23:19 -0700 Albert Astals Cid
wrote
> El dilluns, 17 de setembre de 2018, a les 20:01:15 CEST, Andrew Crouthamel
> va escriure:
> Unless we can check if there has been no comment after the comment that
> changed the status to NEEDSINFO, it that's
El dilluns, 17 de setembre de 2018, a les 20:01:15 CEST, Andrew Crouthamel va
escriure:
> I've been spending a lot of time browsing, searching, and filtering our bugs
> in Bugzilla. One of the areas I've found that could use improvement, are the
> NEEDSINFO bugs. Often, bugs are placed into
Thanks for taking the initiative on this, Andrew. I think everything you've
laid out makes sense, and I like those messages. +1.
Nate
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 12:56:09 -0700 Andrew Crouthamel
wrote
> Thanks Harald,
>
> I've spoken with buovjaga and x1sc0 regarding their
Thanks Harald,
I've spoken with buovjaga and x1sc0 regarding their LibreOffice QA procedures:
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/Bugzilla/Gardening#Task:_Cleaning-out_NEEDINFO
Linked there are some scripts that are run either automated or manually. The
NEEDSINFO one is manual right now.
Ilmari Lauhakangas kirjoitti 18.9.2018 klo 14.13:
Harald Sitter kirjoitti 18.9.2018 klo 13.40:
Anywayyy... I can throw together some automation so long as someone
tells me what exactly the process should be :P
Wait a bit as I have just been in contact with Andrew about re-using the
Harald Sitter ha scritto:
On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 12:59 PM Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
Would it also be possible to automatically remove the needinfo status if the
reporter adds a comment after it's set to needinfo?
Yes.
I know that this proposal was rejected in the past, but if the needinfo
On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 12:59 PM Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
>
> Would it also be possible to automatically remove the needinfo status if the
> reporter adds a comment after it's set to needinfo?
Yes.
Harald Sitter kirjoitti 18.9.2018 klo 13.40:
Anywayyy... I can throw together some automation so long as someone
tells me what exactly the process should be :P
Wait a bit as I have just been in contact with Andrew about re-using the
automation LibreOffice already has for this. I need to ask
> One of the areas I've found that could use improvement
IMHO it's really not a huge problem*.
If a reporter doesn't answer back, then they clearly don't care.
If its marked as needsinfo it's not in my lists, it doesn't affect me as a
dev in the slightest. They're filtered out by default, I have
Would it also be possible to automatically remove the needinfo status if the
reporter adds a comment after it's set to needinfo?
On dinsdag 18 september 2018 12:40:09 CEST Harald Sitter wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 8:25 PM Nate Graham wrote:
> > +1, in favor, especially if we can close them
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 8:25 PM Nate Graham wrote:
> +1, in favor, especially if we can close them in an automated fashion.
> Closing bugs isn't as frustrating for filers as it used to be anyway, since
> if they ever show up again with new information, they can just re-open them.
Should be
No problem, I can make that part of the procedure until we figure out an
automated method. After two weeks, send out a reminder, then two weeks later
close if no activity.
Andrew Crouthamel
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, September 17, 2018 3:10 PM, Michael Reeves
wrote:
> I
I would definitely have a warning message posted when this is about to
happen. I have no objection as.long is clear what information is needed. I
would be inclined to do this manually even if the system doesn't.
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 2:39 PM Scott Harvey wrote:
> Can Bugzilla be configured to
At worst case, we could edit bug/create/user-message.html.tmpl which is the
text that shows at the top of the bug creation page.
Andrew Crouthamel
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, September 17, 2018 2:38 PM, Scott Harvey wrote:
> Can Bugzilla be configured to add boilerplate to
Can Bugzilla be configured to add boilerplate to the email that goes out
with a NEEDSINFO that reads "This bug report will be closed after 30
days unless blah blah blah"?
On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 11:19:59 -0700 Adriaan de Groot wrote
> This depends on the state change *to* NEEDSINFO having a comment or other
> message that is sufficiently directive: "we need in order to
> do
> anything with this bug". Or, in general, we'd need to keep in mind
On Monday, 17 September 2018 20:01:15 CEST Andrew Crouthamel wrote:
> This is already a policy at many other projects such as The Document
> Foundation, Chromium, and Fedora. Additionally, several of our developers
> within KDE are already doing this.
This depends on the state change *to*
I've been spending a lot of time browsing, searching, and filtering our bugs in
Bugzilla. One of the areas I've found that could use improvement, are the
NEEDSINFO bugs. Often, bugs are placed into this status, either awaiting
additional information or backtraces, never to be updated again. We
36 matches
Mail list logo
