On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr> wrote:
On 01 Sep 2015, at 10:46, Peter Uhnák <i.uhnak@gmail.com> wrote:
Sometimes I encounter issue that is no longer valid (has been fixed / changed / ... )
Do I mark it as
I think it depends⦠the strange thing that fogbugz makes âresolvingâ and âcloseâ two steps helps here, though: we can keep issues open for some days to give the original submitter a chance to react and âsymbolizeâ that this is not just a rude action on our partâ¦
So I would use ânot reproducibleâ if you canât reproduce. Then if two people canât, we close.
And inside of âresolvedâ we have âNor reproducibleâ, âinvalidâ (e.g. if the subsystem has been removed or changed). Or even âFixedâ.
There also seem to be quite large amount of stale issues... If someone didn't fix them nor even commented on them in years, maybe the issue should be let to die? If nobody is commenting on it, nobody is interested in it. If the issue pops up again, we can easily create fresh issue.
Yes, we have a âTimeOutâ State⦠we should use that more⦠it would be best to do that automatically, so nobody can get upset against a person closing the issuesâ¦
The neutrality and consistency of this is a good idea.
12 month after no action â> close with mail to original submitter.
A two step action to close would be good. Resolve to "Stale" status while requesting an update from submitter, possibly also notifying anyone that commented. Then close it if it remains stale for some amount of time -- but we should take care that these don't end up in our release statistics as "wow look how many issue we closed." If possible, maybe there should also be a prominent message in the header or sidebar of our Fogbugz pages advising of this policy.
Re-opening is easy, and with that we make sure that only valid issues stay in the issue tracker.
(Many of these issues will actually be already fixed, so it will save a lot of timeâ¦)
cheers -ben