Re: 2.6.25-rc7-git2: Reported regressions from 2.6.24

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:

> > This is why I have always been advocating so aggressive culling of 
> > regressions and bug-reports - stale bug-reports are worse than 
> > useless, they actually _hurt_.
> 
> I don't quite agree here.  At least, they indicate that we may have an 
> unfixed problem and the fact that no one has taken care of it doesn't 
> really mean we should generally ignore it.

culling doesnt mean ignoring - it just means de-prioritizing. There's 
four basic bug categories:

1- bugs where there's inactivity on the reporter side. This we should
   de-prioritize - and reactivate them once their activity changes.

2- bugs where there's inactivity on the _maintainer_ side show bad bugs 
   in our process.

3- bugs that are old but have lots of activity are usually the most 
   difficult bugs where both side try their best to get it resolved.

4- bugs that are relatively new can be in any of the above 3 categories, 
   we dont know yet.

so i think we should list bugs in category #3 first: the hardest bugs, 
which need the most eyes. Then should we list #2 - the embarrasing bugs 
where our pocess failed. Then should we list #4 - new, not yet resolved 
bugs which need more eyes - especially in late -rc's. Then comes #1 - 
inactive bugs.

the problem for your scripting is to efficiently parse lkml activity for 
these bugs: which replies are from the "maintainer", and how "active" is 
a thread. So i guess a good heuristic is what you did in your latest 
mail: to reverse sort by age of the bug - but i'd also suggest to list 
too old entries where the bugzilla is not in NEEDINFO state - those 
indicate inactive (or unaware) maintainers.

	Ingo