Closing old jiras

[Dy...@Sun.COM]

Hi everybody,

I know that according to the official workflow for Derby:

http://db.apache.org/derby/DerbyBugGuidelines.html#%22Close%22+your+bug+once+it+is+%22Resolved%22

the reporter is supposed to close the issue: "As the submitter of a bug,
it is your responsibility to verify a bug fix and "Close" the issue."

As some of you may have noticed, I violated this rule today and
bulk-closed issues that were resolved, but had not been
updated in the last 12 months.

I considered making a "Could this be closed now" comment, but decided
that the extra mail traffic wasn't worth it.

Unfortunately there are another 135 resolved issues that have not been
updated in the last 6 months:

http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=10594&updated%3Abefore=24%2FJul%2F07&status=5&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC


And 241 that have not been updated this year:

http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=10594&updated%3Abefore=31%2FDec%2F07&status=5&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC

Perhaps we need to amend the workflow rules with a time limit, so that
resolved issues can be automatically closed? Or should someone (like the
release manager) perodically remind people that they should close issues
they have reported?

I guess it is inevitable that some issue-reporters leave the community
so there will always be some bulk-closing now and then. But surprisingly
many of the resolved issues are actually reported by people who are
still active in the community. So perhaps the workflow rules do need to
be revised...?


-- 
dt

Re: Closing old jiras

[Myrna van Lunteren <m....@gmail.com>]

On 1/24/08, Dyre.Tjeldvoll@sun.com <Dy...@sun.com> wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
> I know that according to the official workflow for Derby:
>
> http://db.apache.org/derby/DerbyBugGuidelines.html#%22Close%22+your+bug+once+it+is+%22Resolved%22
>
> the reporter is supposed to close the issue: "As the submitter of a bug,
> it is your responsibility to verify a bug fix and "Close" the issue."
>
> As some of you may have noticed, I violated this rule today and
> bulk-closed issues that were resolved, but had not been
> updated in the last 12 months.
>
> I considered making a "Could this be closed now" comment, but decided
> that the extra mail traffic wasn't worth it.
>
> Unfortunately there are another 135 resolved issues that have not been
> updated in the last 6 months:
>
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=10594&updated%3Abefore=24%2FJul%2F07&status=5&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC
>
>
> And 241 that have not been updated this year:
>
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=10594&updated%3Abefore=31%2FDec%2F07&status=5&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC
>
> Perhaps we need to amend the workflow rules with a time limit, so that
> resolved issues can be automatically closed? Or should someone (like the
> release manager) perodically remind people that they should close issues
> they have reported?
>
> I guess it is inevitable that some issue-reporters leave the community
> so there will always be some bulk-closing now and then. But surprisingly
> many of the resolved issues are actually reported by people who are
> still active in the community. So perhaps the workflow rules do need to
> be revised...?
>
>
> --
> dt
>
My 2 cents, I think the workflow rule makes sense, in principle - it's
like a hand-shake indicating all parties agree.
But it's inevitable some slip through the cracks and like you said,
some folks will leave the community.
I think bulk closing by whomever gets bothered by this is OK...

But maybe the rules could be adjusted so that if the issue was
reported by an active developer, and the issue process had regular
feedback from the reporter, the resolver may close the issue. (The
reporter can always reopen).

Myrna