1 |
On 20:25 Thu 10 Mar , Kevin F. Quinn wrote: |
2 |
> Hi all, |
3 |
> |
4 |
> I was nosing through bugzilla, and noticed: |
5 |
> |
6 |
> * Number of open bugs is greater than 14,000 |
7 |
> * Number of open bugs untouched for more than 2 years - well over 2000. |
8 |
> * Number of open bugs untouched between 1 and 2 years - well over 2000. |
9 |
> * Number of open bugs untouched between 6 months and 1 year - well over |
10 |
> 2000. |
11 |
> * Number of open bugs untouched between 3 months and 6 months - over |
12 |
> 2000 |
13 |
> |
14 |
> The winner is bug #78406, which hasn't been touched for over 2240 days |
15 |
> - over 6 years - at the time of writing. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> I would guess these old untouched bugs aren't actually going to be |
18 |
> touched, ever - a lot simply won't be relevant any more for one reason |
19 |
> or another. All they're doing is cluttering up bugzilla. |
20 |
> |
21 |
> |
22 |
> So I'd like to suggest a drastic, perhaps controversial action. Mark |
23 |
> all bugs that haven't been touched for over (say) 3 months as |
24 |
> "Resolved:Wontfix", with a polite comment saying that it is closed due |
25 |
> to lack of resource amongst the volunteer developer community. |
26 |
|
27 |
I do come back to bugs after years. They should not be closed if they |
28 |
are not fixed. "WONTFIX" for me means that there was a decision made |
29 |
that this will not be fixed, but that is not the case. |
30 |
|
31 |
+1 for the argument that 14000 open bugs is not a problem. Bugzilla is |
32 |
not something that needs to be clean and tidy. Closing them would |
33 |
generate a lot of work because of false positive while there is zero |
34 |
benefit. |
35 |
|
36 |
Cheers, |
37 |
Thomas |
38 |
|
39 |
> sure a suitable bugzilla script wiz could do that relatively easily. |
40 |
> Users who care about such bugs can still comment on them, or talk |
41 |
> directly to the assigned dev to highlight it's still a relevant issue |
42 |
> to them, or even to supply a solution against the current tree. |
43 |
> |
44 |
> It could be an ongoing policy, in which case, users who care about |
45 |
> them can keep bugs alive simply by posting useful updates to the bug, |
46 |
> describing how the issue still applies to a new revision for example. |
47 |
> |
48 |
> Just a thought from an old ex-dev... |
49 |
> |
50 |
> Kev. |
51 |
> |
52 |
> |
53 |
> |
54 |
|
55 |
-- |
56 |
Thomas Kahle |
57 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~tomka/ |