Re: BTS feature?
On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 11:51:39AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Steve M. Robbins writes:
> > I don't follow your reasoning. Are you suggesting that the bug
> > submitters will be less annoyed if the bug is closed after 30 days,
> > rather than immediately? Why would that be?
> Many bug submitters never respond to requests for additional information.
> Example: let's say I receive a bug against pppconfig which says "I typed
> pon and nothing happened!". I conclude that it is probably operator error
> and send a request for clarification to <bugid>-email@example.com.
> In the meantime the submitter gets around to reading the pon man page and
> realizes that his connection was up all the time. He is so embarrassed
> that he doesn't respond. Consequently, at the end of 30 days the bug goes
> away by itself. Had he responded to my request, the bug would have become
> permanent and I would have to deal with it.
> I would think that this autoclose feature would be quite popular with
> maintainers of packages that receive large numbers of spurious or duplicate
> bug reports.
The 'moreinfo' BTS tag already exists for this purpose. If manually looking
for this tag is too much work (hmm...), then a simple script could be written
to find bugs with this tag that have not seen any activity in a certain amount