Curtis Hovey writes ("Re: Massive bug expiration spree (Restoring all bugs to their previous status)"):
> On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 17:03 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > For what it's worth, I think the approach of expiring bugs
> > automatically in this way is misguided.
> >
> > That is to say, I think the right process is this one:
> >
> > 0. All bugs are exempt
>
> That is true. That is the only acceptable behaviour. Fixing the defects
> regarding the duplicates, and adjusting the time rules should make the
> community happy.
I'm afraid I don't understand you at all.
I'm saying that LP should not expire bugs automatically. Any bugs, at
all. You appear to agree with me and then you talk again about fixing
rules regarding duplicates and expiry times - but if we are not going
to expire any bugs then there will be no rules about duplicates and no
expiry times.
> I say 'should', because in examining the what went wrong, it is apparent
> that many users are using the status Incomplete to mean something other
> than 'This report cannot be confirmed to be a bug, additional
> information is needed'.
Even where the status Incomplete does mean that, it does not follow
that the bug should be closed if it remains untouched and Incomplete.
The status of Invalid means something different from `Invalid for a
long time' and bug reports do not become invalid bug reports just
because more information is needed to understand/classify them, even
if that information is missing for an extended period and will
probably never be provided.
Ian.
This is the launchpad-users mailing list archive — see also the general help for Launchpad.net mailing lists.
(Formatted by MHonArc.)