Boie, Andrew P
I think we need to re-examine the current policy of auto-closing bugs after 60 days of no activity. I understand the intent, we don't want stale bugs lying around, but I think what we have now introduces some bad incentives.
The current policy that was recently introduced is, AFAICT:
This unfortunately creates an incentive for bug assignees to simply ignore bugs that are assigned to them, as after a while they will go away.
The onus is currently on the *reporter* to keep these bugs from auto-closing. Because it's the reporter who cared enough to open the bug report to begin with. The assignee may not care at all, or have bigger fish to fry.
I will freely admit to ignoring some P3 bugs assigned to me by the Coverity-Bot, I'd probably get around to them eventually if someone started bugging me about them, but as it stands now they just got auto-closed a few days ago and now I probably don't have to worry about them ever!
I know that I've filed several P3 issues against x86_64 that I assigned to myself that I don't plan on getting around to for a while, but I would very much not like to lose the information that these bugs exist at all!
As it stands now, as someone who opens a lot of bugs, of varying priority levels, I have to either:
Maybe this was all anticipated and that's how we want it. But if not I think the current policy needs to be thought about some more, and while that's taking place I ask that this mechanism be disabled.