| 1 |
Il giorno gio, 10/03/2011 alle 20.25 +0000, Kevin F. Quinn ha scritto: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> * Number of open bugs is greater than 14,000 |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
For the record, about 10% of those are reported by me through tinderbox |
| 6 |
(1506 open bugs reported by me as of today). A number of those date back |
| 7 |
in 2008 and earlier, and could be fixed reasonably quickly if the |
| 8 |
packages were maintained. And no, me or any other number of people going |
| 9 |
through to fix just those is not feasible, see my old post at [1] for |
| 10 |
some reasons. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I actually use the fact that these are still open to judge whether a |
| 13 |
package has to be removed from the tree, closing them would definitely |
| 14 |
be a bad idea for two reasons: |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
- makes it harder to see whether the package has any maintainer at all; |
| 17 |
- would waste my time as I'd be re-opening the same exact bug at the |
| 18 |
following tinderbox iteration, as the original bug was closed (and no, I |
| 19 |
wouldn't go _reopening_ the bug, since I wouldn't remember there was one |
| 20 |
already most of the time, so the load on bugzilla would increase). |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
So if somebody would still have doubts about this, I think the point is |
| 23 |
vetoed to close bugs without action as WONTFIX after any time at all. |
| 24 |
Rather get rid of the package in that case. And you can challenge that |
| 25 |
with the council if you wish as I'm weighting that in as part of QA, |
| 26 |
thank you very much. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
OTOH if a bug is waiting for user to report build logs or other kind of |
| 29 |
test results, closing as TEST-REQUEST or NEEDINFO is likely a good idea. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
[1] http://blog.flameeyes.eu/2009/12/28/the-five-minutes-fix-myth |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes |
| 35 |
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ |
Archives