On Feb 6, 2014 11:06 AM, "Kevin Fenzi" <kevin@scrye.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2014 04:00:17 -0500
> Matthew Miller <mattdm@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>
> > I would like to see one of the following, in order of preference:
> >
> > 1.  Step one: when a release hits EOL, move the bugs to NEEDINFO with
> >     a notice similar to the current one. (Essentially moving the
> > current warning back a little bit.)
> >
> >     Step one point five: I believe pretty much anyone can clear the
> > NEEDINFO flag.
> >
> >     Step two: when the *next* release hits EOL (and the release under
> >     consideration has been EOL for approximately 6 months), move any
> > bugs still in NEEDINFO to a new closed resolution like CLOSED:EOL,
> > with a message similar to the current EOL note.
>
> So, all those bugs stay open on the EOL version until EOL+1?
>
> That seems poor to me. What do we do if someone clears needinfo and
> says: Yes, this still affects me, I am running EOL release. Please fix
> it.
>
> We cannot, the EOL release is closed, no more updates or support.
>
> How does leaving it open there help?
>
> >     EOL wouldn't be visibile as an available status for bugzilla
> > users to select when closing a bug in the interface, so it does not
> > add to UI clutter, but also makes it easy for us to do reports
> > distinguishing between intentional and eol closure.
>
> Is this possible?
>
> >     This gives a much longer timeframe where we're waiting for input,
> > so by the time we actually close, the release has been EOL for a
> > decent while (rather than now, at the "I just got around to
> > updating!" point).
> >
> >     This does risk some false positives (negatives? whatever) where
> > NEEDINFO is cleared with "works for me" but the bug not closed, but
> > that seems like a less serious problem.
>
> Yeah, thats another issue with this... they would stick around in that
> case until the maintainer or someone came in and cleared them.
>
> > 2.  As #1, but with no new CLOSED:EOL resolution. Instead, use
> > WONTFIX or and add a ClosedEOL keyword automatically. This is uglier
> > than the above but requires no bugzilla change.
> >
> > 3.  As #1, but just leave bugs in NEEDINFO state forever.
> >
> >     This would possibly require maintainers to update their searches /
> >     filters to leave out NEEDINFO bugs, or at least NEEDINFO bugs
> > from older releases.
>
> It would also be misleading, IMHO.
>
> "Hey reporter, I need info to fix this"
>
> "Here you go, here's the info you wanted from my Fedora 7 machine,
> please provide update"
>
> kevin
>
> --

What do you all think about adding a note to bugs against Fedora N-1 when Fedora N is released, ie:

"You filed this bug against Fedora 19, and Fedora 20 has recently been released.  A new Fedora release includes a version update for many packages, and your issue may have been resolved.  Please consider checking to see if your issue persists in Fedora 20 and updating this ticket accordingly.  Any bugs remaining open when support ends for Fedora 19, shortly after the release of Fedora 21, unless the issue affects Fedora 20 or Fedora 21.”

Not polished copy, obviously, but giving the reporter some more warning/prodding can't hurt.

--Pete