Ticket #1198 (closed task: fixed)
Possible changes to Fedora EOL bug procedure
|Reported by:||mattdm||Owned by:|
|Cc:||jreznik@…, crobinso@…||Blocked By:|
In short, the auto-close message tells people to reopen if it's still an issue, but regular users (even the bug reporter) can't make the necessary changes.
I've been asking a lot of people what they like and do not like about Fedora, and the auto-closing is up there in the top ten (on the second of those lists).
When I started doing this in 2005 or whenever, the idea was to help sort out bugs that were still real and important to people from years of legacy cruft filed against Red Hat Linux. The process I used was NEEDINFO for a month and then to WONTFIX for the ones that weren't touched.
Also I added myself to the CC list of all the bugs I closed in this way and attempted to respond personally when people had issues. And I did it by hand rather than having it scripted. Things were smaller then. :)
I really still like that two-phase approach, because I think it sends a better message. The current one is really disheartening to users. And, it distinguishes intentional WONTFIX from scripted closure. (I'd even suggest INSUFFICENT_DATA as the final state. Travel with me now down memory lane ...)
I think this has the advantage of not requiring any bugzilla changes. I also like it as an opportunity to note to people that we are doing more than just fixing the bug but trying to make the overall process less harsh to users who contribute their feedback.
If we can't get agreement on that, we should ask for the bugzilla change so (at least) the requester can reopen their own bugs.
comment:41 Changed 18 months ago by adamwill
comment:44 in reply to: ↑ 40 Changed 18 months ago by mitr
comment:76 Changed 6 months ago by jreznik
- Status changed from closed to reopened
- Resolution fixed deleted