If you cced me on a bug sometime in the last two days, I probably won't get to that mail until well into the middle of next week, given the current volume of bugspam that this latest round of UNCO-twiddling has caused... If it's urgent (as in, affects 1.8), please just mail me directly. Review requests and review/approval being granted are probably OK as they are, since I can filter for those.
That said, so far, this round seems to be less noisy than the first one. Of the first 7 bugs I looked at from the list of newly-EXPIRED bugs I got mail for, only two were possibly valid bugs (one waiting on me to decide whether it's valid, actually, one just in need of deciding on the component before it's confirmed and then fixed). The ratio was much worse with the first round.
Posted by bzbarsky at October 14, 2005 1:43 AM"The ratio was much worse with the first round."
That's the idea! :-) Note that I excluded the Layout components this time, as requested. So you should have got a lot less bugspam this time.
Can't you filter the UNCO mails out using Thunderbird to search for particular body text?
Posted by: Gerv on October 14, 2005 3:16 AMI've been reading bugs that I get auto-resolve email for, because if I've cc'ed myself on an UNCO bug, that usually means I care about the bug in some way. I imagine it's the same for bz.
Posted by: Jesse Ruderman on October 14, 2005 3:48 AM> So you should have got a lot less bugspam this
> time.
I did. Last time I completely filtered out all the actual comments from you, and I still ended up with a few days' worth of extra bugmail to sort through.
> to search for particular body text?
There's no useful text to search for in that body, gerv. You didn't put in any sort of unique string. Searching on "|EXPIRED" gave me some existing mails as well (this is IMAP, with lots of existing bugmail in the folder) that had that string in the body. Which means that even if I stick all those off into a separate folder (and I have), there's no guarantee that real new stuff didn't get caught in that search.
The situation is even worse with replies to the resolution mail (5 or 6 bugs so far, with an average of 2 comments each from the reporter as they reopen the bug). Those I do have to read.
And frankly, given the 2/7 ratio, it seems that I should really read these. If that holds, there are 100-some real bugs involved here.
Posted by: Boris on October 14, 2005 7:56 AM