| 1 |
On 12/15/10 1:16 PM, Duncan wrote: |
| 2 |
> Mike Frysinger posted on Tue, 14 Dec 2010 22:22:14 -0500 as excerpted: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> On Tuesday, December 14, 2010 20:54:45 Jeroen Roovers wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 14:00:02 +0200 (EET) Alex Alexander wrote: |
| 6 |
>>>> Our bug queue has 118 bugs! |
| 7 |
>>> |
| 8 |
>>> I am starting to wonder if this is helping. It looks like everyone now |
| 9 |
>>> attempts to keep it <100 on a daily basis, but not to far <100, which |
| 10 |
>>> means a lot of old, difficult, nasty bug reports are left unattended. |
| 11 |
>>> Still, I got it down to about two dozen now. |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> i think people will aim for whatever arbitrary limit is picked. so |
| 14 |
>> raising it to say 200 wont help either. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Agreed. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Which begs the question[1], why not take the opportunity to lower it? |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Just be careful: |
| 22 |
That will result in more emails, and in people getting annoyed by them |
| 23 |
putting filters on them, resulting in less people reading such emails, |
| 24 |
which will result in more open bugs, and more emails, repeat ad infinitum. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Besides from that, I still don't really know why these things have to |
| 27 |
appear on our technical mailinglist. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Alex |
Archives