+1 Le dimanche 23 novembre 2014 21:34:31 Karl Heinz Marbaise a écrit : > Hi, > > +1 from me to... > > On 11/23/14 8:48 PM, Kristian Rosenvold wrote: > > I think this is a very good idea. But I have seen this mis-used a few > > times in other projects, and I think we want to avoid this scenario: > > > > There are some bugs that have very well written bug reports with > > detailed descriptions on reproduction and/or quite a few watchers too. > > I've seen this "rule" misused; some committer comes along and requests > > some kind of additional information - sometimes the request can border > > on the silly and maybe the committer does not really even understand > > the problem (half of us really don't half the time - that's just the > > way triaging works sometimes). So the issue gets closed because the > > people who are familiar with the bug think it's a silly request to > > make (and they might not even know its a committer making it - we have > > no special distinctions in jira) and we basically piss off users. > > > > So I think it's a good strategy for half-baked, potentially old and > > half-clear issues (which there are a LOT of!). A hundred years ago > > someone taught me that if one person reports something it can be > > ignored, but when the second person reports it it's most likely a bug. > > So any issue with just one "user" watcher should be pretty harmless ( > > I may sometimes watch issues but I really don't want to be counted as > > a watcher...) > > > > I just fixed/triaged well over a hundred bugs in maven-assembly-plugin > > and out of the 56 remaining bugs there's probably 20-30 I'd want to > > close this way. > > > > I was about to create some heuristic about when to be careful with > > such a rule, but I basically changed my mind :) > > > > Actually maybe we should just say that after >30 days, we add an > > additional message > > > > "this issue will be closed as incomplete in 10 days unless the > > requested information is supplied"; just to give a clear indication > > that we mean it. A well defined process is much more important than > > "hasty" closing. And if a different committer thinks the issue should > > be kept open, it's all ok to say so in the issue. > > Sounds really good to me... > > > I am also slightly sceptical of carpet-bombing jira with this stuff; > > once we request more test data we're also giving the expectation that > > someone /will/ be looking at the additional data that the user has > > supplied. So I would be expecting whoever triages with this method to > > also be willing to do at least some followup...? > > > > But this is overall just details on how to make this good; I'm +1 on > > the proposal. > > > > Kristian > > Kind regards > Karl Heinz Marbais > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
