Reverse bug triage

[Andrew Farris]

Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Andrew Farris <lordmorgul at gmail.com> said:
>> The automated script has no way of knowing the specifics of these bugs; go 
>> comment 'this still matters' and change them out of NEEDINFO.  The bug 
>> triaging team is following the best path forward they had decided upon; 
>> there is no possible way for a scripted bugzilla cleaning tool to decide if 
>> all the information is there to solve that bug.
> 
> Do the triage messages just go to the requester or to everybody
> (requester, maintainer, CCs)?  If they only go to the requester, then
> one rule to try would be if the last comment was from the requester,
> send a notice to the maintainer.  In most cases, if the requester was
> the last person to comment, there's nothing more they can do unless
> asked for more info.

I think any comment posted to the bug should go out to all CC's, so I would 
think anyone on the list got those messages including the maintainers.  I'm not 
positive whether there did or not, but unless CC's are specifically excluded it 
should have.

Also, that idea is interesting but problematic for bugs where the original 
reporter disappeared but a secondary commenter provided the necessary info.  It 
might have caught a few cases, but would have needed human review too because 
some bugs that reporter comments back something like 'Ill look at this soon' 
which really was not the requested info; that bug needs closed if they haven't 
reported back the right info, so leaving it would be clutter that the triaging 
missed.

-- 
Andrew Farris <lordmorgul at gmail.com> www.lordmorgul.net
  gpg 0x8300BF29 fingerprint 071D FFE0 4CBC 13FC 7DEB  5BD5 5F89 8E1B 8300 BF29
  revoked key 0xC99B1DF3 no longer used
No one now has, and no one will ever again get, the big picture. - Daniel Geer
----                                                                       ----