Let's finalize a plan on handling old bug/fix/etc. messages in BFAV2 (was Re: Clean up BFAV)

ducasse ducasse at iam.unibe.ch
Sat Jan 10 16:43:04 UTC 2004

ok for me ken.
thanks for your time.
Qualifying the close tag is indeed important this way we will be able 
to trace closed items if necessary and know why they have been closed.

On 10 janv. 04, at 17:35, Ken Causey wrote:

> We've discussed this long enough and I think there is at least a 
> general
> consensus that something should be done about automatically closing
> older bug/fix/etc. reports.  To at least the general concept I've heard
> no naysayers and have positive responses from Cees de Groot (who
> suggested doing so in the first place), Julian Fitzell, Me, Stephane
> Ducasse, Doug Way, Brent Vukmer, Marcus Denker, and Daniel Vainsencher.
> I wouldn't mind hearing from more of the Guides since this is a rather
> drastic action (reversible but it would be a pain to do so).  But so 
> far
> it seems to be just a matter of working out the details.
> If we can finalize the details soon I'm willing to take care of this.
> First I would like to respond to a couple of the comments made:
> Doug Way, said 'Hm, sending an email to squeak-dev for each one might 
> be
> overkill...?' and Daniel Vainsencher said 'As another compromise 
> between
> notifying only the author, and mail-bombing the list, we could mail
> everyone that had participated in the thread around each particular
> mail.'
> I definitely do not want to mail-bomb the list and would not send any 
> of
> the messages to the squeak-dev list but instead to the squeak-harvest
> list which no one in their right mind should be subscribed to (at least
> not in digest mode).  Daniel suggests that everyone who participated in
> a thread receive the email but that seems a bit extreme to me.  Let's
> not forget that all of the closed groups will still be fully documented
> in BFAV2 and nothing will disappear.  All one would need to do is to
> choose to view closed groups.  At a minimum I think the originator of
> each thread should be emailed and certainly the squeak-harvest list so
> the change is incorporated in BFAV2.  Does anyone else agree with 
> Daniel
> that all thread participants should be emailed?
> On a related issue I should point out one problem.  BFAV2 (and BFAV)
> group messages simply by the subject.  There are quite a few examples 
> of
> completely seperate threads that BFAV2 groups together because they
> don't have seperate subjects.  This of course means that a few thread
> originators will not be notified because BFAV2 does not identify them.
> I don't think this is a major issue myself.
> OK, so my proposed plan:
> I will write some code to interface with BFAV2 and identify each thread
> that has had no discussion since 12/31/2002.
> For each such thread I will send a message to the thread originator and
> the squeak-harvest list including a [closed] tag and a [timeout] tag.
> The text of the message will explain for the thread originator's 
> benefit
> that the issue is being closed due to age and to help clean up the
> archives.
> It will also explain that they should review the issue and resubmit it
> if it is still relevant.
> Can I get confirmation from all those interested in harvesting that 
> this
> plan is acceptable?  Or proposed modifications?
> Ken Causey
> P.S. Anyone who would like to discuss the issue in a more realtime
> manner can find me on #squeak on irc.freenode.net.

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list