Seems like a great approach. You might want to also include: This bug was probably not triaged due to lack of information to reproduce the issue. Please include as much information about the problem including steps to allow a developer to reproduce the issue in order for your time in reporting it to be useful for the community!
Is there a 'best practice for reporting a bug' document somewhere, it'd likely be very useful to include a link in lieu of a message like the one above... R On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Markus Zoeller <mzoel...@linux.vnet.ibm.com > wrote: > On 27.05.2016 15:47, Vincent Legoll wrote: > > Hello, > > > > Le 27/05/2016 15:25, Markus Zoeller a écrit : > >> I don't see a benefit in leaving very old bug reports open when nobody > >> is working on it (again, a resource problem). Closing it (with "Won't > >> Fix") is explicit and easy to query. The information is not lost. This > >> does*not* mean we don't care about the reported issues. It's simply > >> just more than we can currently handle. > > > > Are you sure "won't fix" is the right message you want to convey to the > > users that at least came to report something ? > > > > Isn't there an "expired" status or something else better suited ? > > > > "Won't fix" is a very strong message for a user. > > > > At least put a message explaining this is not really "we don't want to > > fix it" but "we expired old stale bugs"... > > > > You're right, there is a status "Expired" which can be set by a script > (but not the web UI). I don't have a strong reason to not use it. > > As explained in the original email, I intend to add this comment to the > expired bug reports: > > This is an automated cleanup. This bug report got closed because > it is older than 18 months and there is no open code change to > fix this. After this time it is unlikely that the circumstances > which lead to the observed issue can be reproduced. > If you can reproduce it, please: > * reopen the bug report > * AND leave a comment "CONFIRMED FOR: <RELEASE_NAME>" > Only still supported release names are valid. > valid example: CONFIRMED FOR: LIBERTY > invalid example: CONFIRMED FOR: KILO > * AND add the steps to reproduce the issue (if applicable) > > I'm open for suggestions to make this sound better. Thanks for this > feedback. > > -- > Regards, Markus Zoeller (markus_z) > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-operators mailing list > OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
