Re: Tidying-up the Issues DB

[Trevor Daniels]

James wrote Monday, October 26, 2015 11:54 AM

> On 26/10/15 11:29, Trevor Daniels wrote:
>> Devs, Bug Squad:
>>
>> Many of the Issues with Status:Started are no longer active, with many not 
>> seeing any change for several years.  Following the move of the Issues DB 
>> from GC to SF many of the original owners of these Started Issues have not 
>> re-registered at SF; indeed many are no longer active on the devel list, and 
>> it seems inconsistent for these issues to have a status of Started when they 
>> have no Owner.  I'd like to tidy up this situation by reverting these issues 
>> to Status:Accepted so they become more obviously available for someone else 
>> to select for further work by appearing in the Open (Accepted) list.
>>
>> To this end I've already reassigned those not seeing any action for over 3 
>> years.  Unless I hear objections I'll continue reassigning more recently 
>> moribund issues until the Open (Begun) and Open (Patch) lists reflect more 
>> closely the issues actually under active consideration.
>>
>> Comments?
> 
> I think you should also be setting the 'owner' if it has any to 'blank'
> (if that wasn't already implied) for issues that are 'Started' and have
> an 'owner' but have had no activity for a similar amount of time.

I shall, although the Owner field is almost always blank anyway for these 
moribund issues.  During the migration it was filled in only for those Devs who 
were already registered at SF.

> I think this may overlap the 'patch-abandoned' discussion - which i
> still need to go back a review as part of my Patch Meister duties.

I don't think what I said conflicts with anything we discussed then - I'm just 
getting on  with doing it.  Usually I shall leave the patch status unchanged, 
unless on inspection I think it looks wrong, in which case I shall add a 
comment explaining any change I make.

Trevor