Re: request for help to fix common mistakes in wnpp bugs
(There's no need to Cc me on list mail, unless I set M-F-T so, thanks)
Bart Martens <email@example.com> writes:
> On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 08:54:19PM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
>> Nathan Handler <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> > On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 2:10 AM, Bart Martens <email@example.com> wrote:
>> >> I hereby request help from anyone (including non-DDs) to fix common mistakes in
>> >> wnpp bugs.
>> > I just went through and did a batch of the ITP bugs without owners. It
>> > looks like someone else might be working on them as well. Between the
>> > time that I was preparing my bulk-update email to control@ and the
>> > time I sent it, several of the bugs were assigned an owner. Maybe we
>> > can actually get this list of issues cleared out completely.
>> Aha! So this is where it started! I'd like to make a suggestion to the
>> script that was used for this task: If someone retitles an ITP bug from
>> ITP to ITP, ignore that, and don't consider said person for the
>> owner. (Or at best, warn the calling user to double-check).
> Hi Gergely,
> It is not clear to me what script you mean. The script that produces the
> report ? Or some script that generates retitle commands ?
The latter, the one that generates the retitle commands. As I learned,
Nathan didn't use one. Learning from that, whoever does the next round
of retitling, probably should.
> It is also not clear to me what kind of problem you seem to have noticed with
> retitling an ITP bug. Can you give an example (bug number) and explain what
> went wrong with it ?
As for an example, see #675276. The scenario there was that someone
reported an ITP (with Owner set!), I reassigned & retitled the bug (from
ITP to ITP, only to fix the short description in the title), then you
did another retitle a few days later, to fix it further.
Then it was mistakenly closed, and subsequently reopened (I believe the
owner got lost around this time).
Then Nathan set me as owner, which is odd, as I'm neither the reporter,
nor the last one to retitle the bug. A script could catch this easily,
hence the patch offer in the previous mail. Provided a script exist,
which I'm not sure about, Nathan told me he didn't use one.