Triage of old tracker bugs: Any use?
I've taken the week off and I'm trying to do something useful for Python in some of my time. I've basically been looking through the entries sorted by priority and least recent activity. Some items I've been able to do something with (like the "immediate" priority %formatting bug #1467929, and the "high" priority bz2 module bug #1597011). Others I've been just kind of prodding people to take some action on, just kind of getting them in front of people again. Keeping them "fresh" instead of just letting them stagnate... I kind of figure that something that's in "high" priority, that has been sitting there for 46 months, either needs to have some activity on it or should be pushed to a lower priority. I've also been tempted to try to triage some of the bugs without assigned priorities, guessing a priority, that sort of thing. Is doing this sort of triage or administration work useful? Any recommendations on what you'd like to have happen in this sort of task? Thanks, Sean -- Obtuse: Not pointed or acute. Exceeding 90 degrees but less than 180 degrees. OOOooh! Rounded at the free end. Dull... Hey! That's an insult! -- WKRP Sean Reifschneider, Member of Technical Staff <jafo@tummy.com> tummy.com, ltd. - Linux Consulting since 1995: Ask me about High Availability
On 8/28/07, Sean Reifschneider <jafo@tummy.com> wrote:
I think closing off old bugs is helpful. We have 1281 bugs open right now and that is not great. Getting that number down would be useful. If an old bug needs a test, then write the test. If it is no longer valid, just close it. And if it needs more info and prodding from somone, set the status as "Pending" so that if someone who reported it is not bothering to update the info it can be easily closed off if that reply never happens. I would say assigning bugs to the right person is a good thing in hopes of prodding someone into action, but that doesn't always work. One thing, Sean, while you are doing all of this (and thanks for that!) is to be thinking about ways to possibly change the workflow for issues (and this goes for anyone else using the new tracker). At some point we should have a discussion about how we want to change how things are handled so that we are happy with it and not trying to match how SF did things. -Brett
Sean> I kind of figure that something that's in "high" priority, that Sean> has been sitting there for 46 months, either needs to have some Sean> activity on it or should be pushed to a lower priority. Note that it might have been high priority for the submitter. That doesn't necessarily mean it should have been marked that way though. Sean> Is doing this sort of triage or administration work useful? Any Sean> recommendations on what you'd like to have happen in this sort of Sean> task? I think it should be useful. If nothing else, you might add a comment asking the submitter if this is still a problem. If something's been there for nearly four years it's possible that it was solved in a later release or worked around by other means. Skip
Is doing this sort of triage or administration work useful? Any recommendations on what you'd like to have happen in this sort of task?
Down-grading things that were once high-priority is certainly reasonable. Of the very old bugs, it would be useful to find out whether they are still reproducable, and, if there is no straight-forward way to reproduce them, ask the submitter to provide a test case (if there is a test case that now passes in a case where it apparently did not pass back then, close it as works-for-me). It would also be good to triage all reports that have not seen any feedback. Unfortunately, it's not easy currently to query the tracker for these, so perhaps the "chatting" state needs to be brought back first. Regards, Martin
On 8/28/07, Sean Reifschneider <jafo@tummy.com> wrote:
I think closing off old bugs is helpful. We have 1281 bugs open right now and that is not great. Getting that number down would be useful. If an old bug needs a test, then write the test. If it is no longer valid, just close it. And if it needs more info and prodding from somone, set the status as "Pending" so that if someone who reported it is not bothering to update the info it can be easily closed off if that reply never happens. I would say assigning bugs to the right person is a good thing in hopes of prodding someone into action, but that doesn't always work. One thing, Sean, while you are doing all of this (and thanks for that!) is to be thinking about ways to possibly change the workflow for issues (and this goes for anyone else using the new tracker). At some point we should have a discussion about how we want to change how things are handled so that we are happy with it and not trying to match how SF did things. -Brett
Sean> I kind of figure that something that's in "high" priority, that Sean> has been sitting there for 46 months, either needs to have some Sean> activity on it or should be pushed to a lower priority. Note that it might have been high priority for the submitter. That doesn't necessarily mean it should have been marked that way though. Sean> Is doing this sort of triage or administration work useful? Any Sean> recommendations on what you'd like to have happen in this sort of Sean> task? I think it should be useful. If nothing else, you might add a comment asking the submitter if this is still a problem. If something's been there for nearly four years it's possible that it was solved in a later release or worked around by other means. Skip
Is doing this sort of triage or administration work useful? Any recommendations on what you'd like to have happen in this sort of task?
Down-grading things that were once high-priority is certainly reasonable. Of the very old bugs, it would be useful to find out whether they are still reproducable, and, if there is no straight-forward way to reproduce them, ask the submitter to provide a test case (if there is a test case that now passes in a case where it apparently did not pass back then, close it as works-for-me). It would also be good to triage all reports that have not seen any feedback. Unfortunately, it's not easy currently to query the tracker for these, so perhaps the "chatting" state needs to be brought back first. Regards, Martin
participants (4)
-
"Martin v. Löwis" -
Brett Cannon -
Sean Reifschneider -
skip＠pobox.com