On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 21:14 +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote: > Le mardi 02 octobre 2007 à 15:04 -0300, Christian Robottom Reis a > écrit : > > I've written a piece at > > > > http://news.launchpad.net/general/of-bugs-and-statuses > > > > that describes the intended semantics and existing behaviour for > > Launchpad bugs. I'd love to hear your questions and comments about cases > > which we don't handle well so we can better improve the way the tool > > works. > > * "New (a.k.a. Nobody Has Looked At Me Yet)" > > Bugs are sometime moved from Incomplete to New when the submitter has > provided the required details but the submitter doesn't confirm the > issue > > * "Incomplete (Reporter, Give Us More Information!)" > > The description doesn't mention the case where bugs are sent back to > New. What should a triager do when the submitter replied but he still > doesn't know if the bug should be confirmed? Shouldn't launchpad also > automatically reopen Incomplete bugs when the submitter replies if those > are going to be autoclosed? I'm not sure. We want to avoid this situation. It is difficult to judge progress when a bug moves back and fourth between statues. We will send out a notification about the impeding expiration to all parties to encourage a timely followup. Anyone who sends a message/leaves a comment will implicitly reset the period of inactivity. We have two intervals to work with, the time of expiration and the time of the warning. Sending out a warning 14 days before expiration should be enough time for some person to send an email, Do we need more time? Is 60 days not enough time? I believe Ubuntu's policy is 30 days in Incomplete before it should be moved to Invalid. -- __Curtis C. Hovey_________ http://launchpad.net/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
This is the launchpad-users mailing list archive — see also the general help for Launchpad.net mailing lists.
(Formatted by MHonArc.)