Re: Bug backlog - now and future. Some proposals.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Todd Denniston wrote:
| Bill Davidsen wrote, On 03/15/2008 05:37 PM:
|> Small comments thru the text, rant follows.
|>
|> Jon Stanley wrote:
|>> Hear ye, hear ye!  At the BugZappers meeting that occurred today,
|>> March 12, 2008, two proposals for dealing with the backlog of bugs,
| <SNIP>
|>
|>> To that end, I am proud to present two proposals, One has to do with
|>> dealing with the backlog that we have now, and the other has to do
|>> with making sure we never get into this situation again -- ever. We
|>> believe that these proposals are the right thing to do, and now is the
|>> right time to do them, right before a release.
|>>
|> I would suggest that the time to fix them is now, *instead* of a
release. To clear the backlog by *fixing* the bugs, not by writing
clever scripts to mark them CLOSED:WONTFIX or send notes to bug
submitters to update the version to keep the bug open (unfixed) for
another two releases.
|>
| <SNIP>
|>>
|>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping
|>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JohnPoelstra/BugzillaExtremeMakeOver
|>>
|> I read them, and I find lots of ways to make unfixed bugs exit
bugzilla, but no indication that bugs will actually be fixed in a more
timely fashion.
|>
|> I think you need a "deadline scheduler" approach, if a bug in a
package isn't fixed by some (reasonable) time after it's reported, it
should be evaluated, and unless it's waiting on external info it should
be marked as TRIVIAL, AVOIDABLE, or RECOVERABLE (all FIXLATER), or mark
the package as UNMAINTAINED. Then release the UNMAINTAINED packages as a
separate group in the next release, the way "extras" used to be.
|>
|> I believe that maintainers would be motivated to avoid having their
packages marked UNMAINTAINED, and if they aren't, the description is
accurate. You would hate to drop a package, but having one with serious
bugs is worse. You can define "serious" any way you want, users know
"doesn't work" when they report it.
|>
|> In other words, if the package is still usable by most users,
document the bug as trivial and live with it, and if a major bug isn't
fixed, the reason doesn't matter. Developers enjoy adding new features
more than bug fixing, or become too busy to maintain. Good intentions
are nice, but they don't buy you a beer.
|>
|
| +1, to a point.
|
| If the "maintainer" has (reasonably) asked for more information and it
has been 1 release with no more information coming in, _then_ it would
be reasonable to close the bug.
|
|

But, iff the release addressed an issue related to the bug report in the
first place.  Closing a bug just because you don't have any more
complaints is not really a valid reason.

Maybe part of the release process should be to recreate the problem and
be able to prove the problem is fixed by testing!