Re: Massive bug expiration spree

["Martin Pool" <mbp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 9/22/07, Curtis Hovey <curtis.hovey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-09-21 at 22:41 -0500, Mario Limonciello wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I'm not too sure I agree with this massive expiration on the bug
> > reports.  Just because there was no activity for 60 days doesn't make
> > the bug invalid.  Lots of people have very large queues, and won't be
> > getting to it for a while.  The bugs still do exist and this is making
> > it appear as though they are insignificant or unnecessary.
>
> It is very apparent that some additional constraints are needed in
> addition to the discussion of the period of INCOMPLETE and UNASSIGNED.
> We are preparing a restore of bugs that are duplicates, have milestones,
> have recent comments, or one of the affected locations has an upstream
> bugwatch.

Frankly I don't think that's enough.  For Bazaar there are bugs in the
incomplete state that we want to keep open.  It is not reasonable to
close them with no warning or approval, or to expect us to interrupt
our work to manually reopen them.

Aside from the inconvenience to developers, please consider what kind
of message it sends to a Bazaar user when they spend their time giving
us a good bug report only to have it brusquely discarded.

If Launchpad is now going to have a policy that bugs are not allowed
to be in state X for more  than Y days you have to tell people ahead
of time.

So please, just undo the automatic changes to all our bugs.

-- 
Martin