Open Stack

Seems like a great approach.  You might want to also include:

This bug was probably not triaged due to lack of information to reproduce
the issue.  Please include as much information about the problem including
steps to allow a developer to reproduce the issue in order for your time in
reporting it to be useful for the community!

Is there a 'best practice for reporting a bug' document somewhere, it'd
likely be very useful to include a link in lieu of a message like the one
above...

R

On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Markus Zoeller <mzoeller at linux.vnet.ibm.com
> wrote:

> On 27.05.2016 15:47, Vincent Legoll wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Le 27/05/2016 15:25, Markus Zoeller a écrit :
> >> I don't see a benefit in leaving very old bug reports open when nobody
> >> is working on it (again, a resource problem). Closing it (with "Won't
> >> Fix") is explicit and easy to query. The information is not lost. This
> >> does*not*  mean we don't care about the reported issues. It's simply
> >> just more than we can currently handle.
> >
> > Are you sure "won't fix" is the right message you want to convey to the
> > users that at least came to report something ?
> >
> > Isn't there an "expired" status or something else better suited ?
> >
> > "Won't fix" is a very strong message for a user.
> >
> > At least put a message explaining this is not really "we don't want to
> > fix it" but "we expired old stale bugs"...
> >
>
> You're right, there is a status "Expired" which can be set by a script
> (but not the web UI). I don't have a strong reason to not use it.
>
> As explained in the original email, I intend to add this comment to the
> expired bug reports:
>
>      This is an automated cleanup. This bug report got closed because
>      it is older than 18 months and there is no open code change to
>      fix this. After this time it is unlikely that the circumstances
>      which lead to the observed issue can be reproduced.
>      If you can reproduce it, please:
>      * reopen the bug report
>      * AND leave a comment "CONFIRMED FOR: <RELEASE_NAME>"
>        Only still supported release names are valid.
>        valid example: CONFIRMED FOR: LIBERTY
>        invalid example: CONFIRMED FOR: KILO
>      * AND add the steps to reproduce the issue (if applicable)
>
> I'm open for suggestions to make this sound better. Thanks for this
> feedback.
>
> --
> Regards, Markus Zoeller (markus_z)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/attachments/20160527/8b424450/attachment.html>