Open Stack

Ya, I'd like to make sure that whoever starts applying these messages to 
bugs automagically takes into account that people may (or may not have) 
spent a lot of (personal or other) time reporting a bug and take that 
into account when producing a polite and thankful message to those that 
have gone through that effort (whatever it may have been).

IMHO be nice and considerate and understand that for some folks making a 
bug is a bunch of work and be clear that the bug is being closed, not 
because we don't value there work that was put into that bug...

-Josh

Robert Starmer wrote:
> 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 <mailto:mzoeller at linux.vnet.ibm.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 27.05.2016 15 <tel:27.05.2016%2015>: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
>     <mailto:OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org>
>     http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators