[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Tracking RFSs as bugs

Ansgar Burchardt <ansgar@debian.org> writes:

> Gergely Nagy <algernon@balabit.hu> writes:
>> Ansgar Burchardt <ansgar@debian.org> writes:
>>>  - mentors.d.n automatically closes RFS bugs for uploaded packages or
>>>    packages that were removed from there.  It may also automatically
>>>    close inactive bugs.
>> Apart from closing inactive bugs automatically, I believe this is a good
>> idea.
>> Some non-trivial packages might take some time to review, especially if
>> it turns out there are some issues that need to be solved upstream
>> before an upload can happen (ie, packaging is spot-on, and perfect, but
>> upstream needs to clarify a license, for example).
> That will make the pseudo-package accummulate lots of open bug reports
> that never see any attention.  So I think inactive requests need to be
> dealt with one way or another, closing them automatically after a longer
> term of no activity does seem as easy way to do so (ie. after 4-8 weeks
> of no new comments).

In my opinion, RFS bugs that see no attention, but get uploaded can be
closed automatically: if the version in unstable is >= than on mentors,
and the bug did not see any activity in a while (~4-8 weeks, as you
said), then it can be safely closed.

If it was never uploaded, then I would still opt for manual
handling. Perhaps a monthly report could be made, where inactive bugs
can be listed, and volunteers could glance over the list, and deal with
said bug reports. (And I hereby volunteer to do that, and help setting
up such a monthly report, in the very desired case of RFS's moving to
the BTS)

The reason behind this, is that RFS with no feedback is something that
should not happen, as it's a big discouragement for the requestor, for
one. Keeping them open, with a monthly report would make it easier to
see what needs urgent attention.

> For reviews that take a longer time, the sponsor could set himself as
> the owner of the bug -- bugs with an owner would then not be closed.
> This maybe can also be extended to bugs tagged confirmed.

ACK, sounds good!


Reply to: