On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Marcus Denker <
[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On 01 Sep 2015, at 10:46, Peter Uhnák <
[hidden email]> 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 Sometimes I encounter issue that is no longer valid (has been fixed / changed / ...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 “resolving” and “close” two steps
> helps here, though: we can keep issues open for some days to give the original submitter
> a chance to react and “symbolize” that this is not just a rude action on our part…
>
> So I would use “not reproducible” if you can’t reproduce. Then if two people can’t, we close.
>
> And inside of “resolved” we have “Nor reproducible”, “invalid” (e.g. if the subsystem has been removed
> or changed). Or even “Fixed”.
>
>> 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 “TimeOut” State… we should use that more… it would be best to do that automatically,
> so nobody can get upset against a person closing the issues…
The neutrality and consistency of this is a good idea.
> 12 month after no action —> 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 time…)
cheers -ben
Locked
