The unco bug expiration seems to have indiscriminately expired bugs that had patches attached (eg bug 287388), though I'm pretty sure this was brought up as an issue. While I fail to believe that this could not have been avoided, the damage is already done. So what we need to do now is to find all expired bugs with attached patches and reopen them... Then probably make sure that the patches have reasonable reviews requested for them.
Unfortunately, I'm a little swamped with this whole Gecko 1.8 thing at the moment, so I can't really go through and do it myself. Could someone do it as a favor to me? Please?
Of course the entire review situation for people who post a patch to a bug is awful. A lot of these patches never even end up with a review request, from what I can tell. We need to be a lot better about welcoming contributions; perhaps weekly scans for attached, non-obsoleted patches without review?+- flags? Followed by requesting of review as needed? If bugzilla can't do this for us, we need to fix bugzilla. I realize that the first time we do such a scan we'll hit a lot of false positives, but we should just go ahead and obsolete them. We do it once, and we don't lose track of patches thereafter.
Posted by bzbarsky at October 21, 2005 9:54 AM- A
Posted by: Asa Dotzler on October 21, 2005 10:36 AMWell, with this link I get two more bugs:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&short_desc=&long_desc_type=substring&long_desc=&bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstr&bug_file_loc=&status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstr&status_whiteboard=&keywords_type=allwords&keywords=&resolution=EXPIRED&emailassigned_to1=1&emailtype1=exact&email1=&emailassigned_to2=1&emailreporter2=1&emailqa_contact2=1&emailtype2=exact&email2=&bugidtype=include&bug_id=&votes=&chfieldfrom=&chfieldto=Now&chfieldvalue=&cmdtype=doit&order=Reuse+same+sort+as+last+time&field0-0-0=attachments.ispatch&type0-0-0=equals&value0-0-0=1
Not sure what the difference is.
Expired bug == unconfirmed bug + spam?
It sure looks like it.
The difference is bug 240710 and bug 271164: Asa filtered out bugs with obsolete patches.
In these cases it worked, but I'm not sure I trust what his query would do if a bug had both an obsolete and non-obsolete patch.
Posted by: Dan Veditz on October 21, 2005 12:03 PMOK. So we _can_ query on this. Good! Now who's up for looking at those bugs?
Posted by: Boris on October 21, 2005 12:46 PMSurely we should be asking: who created a patch for a bug without confirming it first?
Hmmm, OK, so a lot of the bugs have patches from the reporter, and maybe they don't have canconfirm. Fair enough.
I'll look through a few of the bugs.
Yes, we're talking about patches from reporters.
Posted by: Boris on October 21, 2005 4:10 PMWell, I reopened a few of those bugs, cc-ed reviewers on one of the bugs -> no response thus far after 4 days.
Not really encouraging.
And with most of the bug list, I don't now what it's about, so I'd rather not meddle with it.
Ccing reviewers is probably nearly useless... Unless you mean you set some review? flags on the relevant people?
Posted by: Boris on October 26, 2005 7:44 AMNo, the review flags were already set, so I cc-ed the reviewers in hope of an answer (that's at least what I can recall of it).
Anyway, the previous bugzilla query I gave is slightly wrong, since it doesn't filter out the obsolete patches, this is a more correct query:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&short_desc=&long_desc_type=substring&long_desc=&bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstr&bug_file_loc=&status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstr&status_whiteboard=&keywords_type=allwords&keywords=&resolution=EXPIRED&emailassigned_to1=1&emailtype1=exact&email1=&emailassigned_to2=1&emailreporter2=1&emailqa_contact2=1&emailtype2=exact&email2=&bugidtype=include&bug_id=&votes=&chfieldfrom=&chfieldto=Now&chfieldvalue=&cmdtype=doit&order=Reuse+same+sort+as+last+time&field0-0-0=attachments.ispatch&type0-0-0=equals&value0-0-0=1&negate1=1&field1-0-0=attachments.isobsolete&type1-0-0=equals&value1-0-0=1