Open Stack

On 24 May 2016 at 18:05, Doug Hellmann <doug at doughellmann.com> wrote:

> Excerpts from Markus Zoeller's message of 2016-05-24 11:00:35 +0200:
> > On 24.05.2016 09:34, Duncan Thomas wrote:
> > > Cinder bugs list was far more manageable once this had been done.
> > >
> > > It is worth sharing the tool for this? I realise it's fairly trivial to
> > > write one, but some standardisation on the comment format etc seems
> > > valuable, particularly for Q/A folks who work between different
> projects.
> >
> > A first draft (without the actual expiring) is at [1]. I'm going to
> > finish it this week. If there is a place in an OpenStack repo, just give
> > me a pointer and I'll push a change.
> >
> > > On 23 May 2016 at 14:02, Markus Zoeller <mzoeller at linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> TL;DR: Automatic closing of 185 bug reports which are older than 18
> > >> months in the week R-13. Skipping specific bug reports is possible. A
> > >> bug report comment explains the reasons.
> > >> [...]
> >
> > References:
> > [1]
> >
> https://github.com/markuszoeller/openstack/blob/master/scripts/launchpad/expire_old_bug_reports.py
> >
>
> Feel free to submit that to the openstack-infra/release-tools repo. We
> have some other tools in that repo for managing launchpad bugs.
>
> Doug


Rather that blanket expiring old bugs, it might seem better to expire bugs
which are in non-triaged state which haven't had activity for >18 months.
This would seem like a less aggressive approach to closing issues which
haven't managed to reach triaged state and are otherwise stale.

This information is available in the API and i'd be happy to suggest a
review to change to this model if it is agreed.

Thanks

--
Kind Regards,
Dave Walker
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20160530/d8520957/attachment.html>