| 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/ |
Archives