On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 11:51:39AM -0500, John Hasler wrote: > Steve M. Robbins writes: > > I don't follow your reasoning. Are you suggesting that the bug > > submitters will be less annoyed if the bug is closed after 30 days, > > rather than immediately? Why would that be? > > Many bug submitters never respond to requests for additional information. > Example: let's say I receive a bug against pppconfig which says "I typed > pon and nothing happened!". I conclude that it is probably operator error > and send a request for clarification to <bugid>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > In the meantime the submitter gets around to reading the pon man page and > realizes that his connection was up all the time. He is so embarrassed > that he doesn't respond. Consequently, at the end of 30 days the bug goes > away by itself. Had he responded to my request, the bug would have become > permanent and I would have to deal with it. > > I would think that this autoclose feature would be quite popular with > maintainers of packages that receive large numbers of spurious or duplicate > bug reports.
The 'moreinfo' BTS tag already exists for this purpose. If manually looking for this tag is too much work (hmm...), then a simple script could be written to find bugs with this tag that have not seen any activity in a certain amount of time. -- - mdz
