Re: [Nautilus-list] Handling Nautilus in bugzilla

[Alex Larsson <alexl redhat com>]

On 5 Mar 2002, Luis Villa wrote:

> On Tue, 2002-03-05 at 10:13, Alex Larsson wrote:
> Would this be sufficient? I'm not really opposed to splitting things up
> as you originally proposed, but I think adding yet a third way of
> identifying/separating out the bugs (beyond keywords and milestones)
> might be getting overly confusing :)

Yeah. I agree. It sounds fine.

> > Is there any chance of adding an X-Bugzilla-Keywords: email header in 
> > addition to the ones we have now so I can filter natuilus-maint into two 
> > folders?
> 
> I've written a patch for this against 2.16, but it is (basically) broken
> wrt 2.10 mailhandling. If it'll help, I'll definitely try to backport it
> sometime this week.

I would *love* this.

> Related to your original thought, but not directly, Alex:
> 
> The main thrust of the original email [ignore the old bugs for now, go
> through them later] brings up a question that I think John raised
> before: why don't we just close all the 'old' milestone bugs that have
> not been touched in > 4 months? I'd like to close them with something
> like this:
> 
> 'These bugs are against extremely old versions of nautilus, or were
> incorrectly marked as such at one point. We ask that you help the
> development of nautilus 1.2 by reopening these bugs if they are still
> valid; if you cannot reopen the bug for some reason, but still feel it
> is a problem, /please/ contact louie ximian com and tell him the bug
> number.'

I don't like this at all. I'm sure that there are a lot of interesting 
thoughs and requests for future enhancements from the original eazel team 
amongst those bugs. If we mass-close them all they are basically lost, 
since nobody is gonna look through closed bugs, and the original 
reporters/thinkers have since left for greener pastures. These bugs are of 
lower prio right now, so we're basically ignoring them while getting 
nautilus 2 up to scratch. But I expect them to be useful later.
 
> 99% are never going to be responded to, but the ones that are reopened
> or responded too are going to be a very high hit rate for 1.2.0/1.2.x
> stuff. As it stands, if the original reporters still care, we get
> feedback (they likely do still care for the important bugs) and if they
> don't, we've just been spared reading 1,000 bugs, many of which are
> basically 'there is a FIXME in the code here'. [This uber-specific
> approach to bug filing made sense when nautilus had a QA staff and lots
> of devels, but not so much anymore, IMHO.]

This is true for a certain kind of bug reports. E.g. crashes and community 
reported bugs, but not for all bugs. So I don't like auto-closing bugs.

-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 Alexander Larsson                                            Red Hat, Inc 
                   alexl redhat com    alla lysator liu se 
He's an old-fashioned guitar-strumming paranormal investigator in drag. She's 
a sharp-shooting bisexual single mother with the power to see death. They 
fight crime!