On 02/05/2016 04:34 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: > On 6 February 2016 at 10:10, Michael Orlitzky <m...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> How about, if there's (exactly) one portage-compatible atom >> in the summary and that package has (exactly) one maintainer, we >> auto-assign it? Otherwise, leave it to the bug wranglers. > > > One of my conceptual misgivings is in practice, there's a lot more to > bug wrangling than that. > > In the last 6 months, here are a list of bugs that were never > reassigned from bugwranglers, and were closed due to being invalid, > incomplete, or duplicate. > > All of these bugs would be now assigned to the individual bug maintainers. > > And I see that as a sizeable quality regression. >
Some of those were closed WORKSFORME when maybe the maintainer would have recognized the problem that the user is seeing (auto-assign would be an *improvement*). Others were closed by the user when he realized his error (no regression there). Then there are the ones that were closed by the maintainer/project, but never reassigned. No regression there either. There are also some that would have wound up assigned to the wrong person, like 573846. But your list isn't a long list of regressions -- many would be an improvement or no change. You also have to take into consideration how many of them have a valid package atom in the summary, and how many of those would have exactly one maintainer. That's a very-sub subset of the full list.
