Am 2014-11-23 um 20:48 schrieb Kristian Rosenvold:
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.
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.
+1 defintively on the old ones. Some idle for years w/o progress.
+1 for the note after 30 days that the grace period is 10 days.
Yes, you are right recent tickets should be handled differently. We all
understand that "auto-closure" should be handled with care, especially
if a dev does not understand the issue described in the ticket. One
should keep his hands off. Though, another one has always the chance to
watch over the changes in JIRA and intercept/intervene here.
Michael
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
