# Bugs to close * Non-GeckoView, Non-JimDB bugs more than 560 days since last modified https://mzl.la/2Jg2Co4 (~3,500) * Unconfirmed bugs to close https://mzl.la/2L65rgk (~300) # Bugs to re-prioritize * Bugs to move to P5: https://mzl.la/2L6SpMA (~2,000) # Bugs to review or move * GeckoView bugs to move to new product (https://mzl.la/2N5M98s) (~120) * Enhancements to be reviewed (https://mzl.la/2JfF6aB) (~190)
Because of cleanup work on Firefox for Android, there's a small number of bugs which will be worked on: https://mzl.la/2Ln0w8e (List of high priority bugs to be fixed for Fennec) https://mzl.la/2rZMDVl (List of medium priority bugs to be fixed for Fennec) https://mzl.la/2LmpdBG (List of low priority bugs to be fixed for Fennec) https://mzl.la/2Limc5g (List of unprioritized bugs to be fixed for Fennec) The others, which aren't in GeckoView, should be marked as P5s unless they are enhancement/feature requests. :susheel, does this sound correct?
Also, I think if a bug is unconfirmed at this time, and not on the Softvision lists, let's resolve it incomplete. That'll clear out the queue, and you can then just focus triage on incoming bugs.
This sounds good to me Emma.
Then I'll drop a note to the usual mailing lists to alert that we're going to set the priority on these bugs, and I'll move them next week.
I'm updating this bug's User Story with the lists of bugs I plan to touch. Giving the community time to review and make recommendations on bugs that should be addressed.
User Story: (updated)
I'm having trouble updating the bugs. It may be because of load on the service. The team will look at it in the morning.
This left a comment on bug 1478614 saying to contact ":susheel", but that doesn't identify a bugzilla user.
It would appear that :susheel is :sdaswani, I'd recommend they update their realname field for that...
Assigning to :dylan to run from console. Please add a comment to all bugs updated to contact :sdaswani if they want to reopen the bug.
Assignee: ehumphries → dylan
This bot closed regression bugs just reported and set priority to P5 for crashers which means that these crashes are no longer on relman radar. Example of a recent regression automatically marked as inactive: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1478614 Example of a crasher with significant volume marked as P5: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1453049 IMO, this is making relman work more difficult if the crashes and regressions in our product are no longer on our radar. I noticed these two bugs largely out of luck, there may well be serious crashes and regressions that are no longer visible to relman. I would suggest that: - bugs with the regression or crash keywords be reopened - recently filed bugs (in the 60 to 63 timeframe) marked as inactive be reopen, note that out users don't have editbugs privilege, marking unconfirmed bugs as invalid immediately as they get filed seems very wrong to me - check that no security bug was closed by this bot
:pascal * Any affected regression and crash bugs have been reopened, I did not find any current ones with those keywords which have been resolved in that time frame. * There are some p5 crashes, but those were filed by Treeherder which files intermittent test failure bugs as P5 * There are no bugs in the 60+ timeframe that are showing as inactive. * There are no security bugs in the set currently marked as inactive. I'm documenting your suggestions in the bulk editing section of the bug triage documentation. :sdaswani https://mzl.la/2PI1OwE are P5's that are crashers, regressions, or dataloss not filed by Treeherder. Should those be re-prioritized?
7 months ago
Assignee: dylan → nobody
Emma, um, no? If they aren't re-prioritized what does that mean?
I mean should the bugs in that list be moved out of P5 or left in P5, per :pascal's remarks above?
I am fine with Pascal's suggestion.
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.