| 1 |
Hi all, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
I was nosing through bugzilla, and noticed: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
* Number of open bugs is greater than 14,000 |
| 6 |
* Number of open bugs untouched for more than 2 years - well over 2000. |
| 7 |
* Number of open bugs untouched between 1 and 2 years - well over 2000. |
| 8 |
* Number of open bugs untouched between 6 months and 1 year - well over |
| 9 |
2000. |
| 10 |
* Number of open bugs untouched between 3 months and 6 months - over |
| 11 |
2000 |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
The winner is bug #78406, which hasn't been touched for over 2240 days |
| 14 |
- over 6 years - at the time of writing. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I would guess these old untouched bugs aren't actually going to be |
| 17 |
touched, ever - a lot simply won't be relevant any more for one reason |
| 18 |
or another. All they're doing is cluttering up bugzilla. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
So I'd like to suggest a drastic, perhaps controversial action. Mark |
| 22 |
all bugs that haven't been touched for over (say) 3 months as |
| 23 |
"Resolved:Wontfix", with a polite comment saying that it is closed due |
| 24 |
to lack of resource amongst the volunteer developer community. I'm |
| 25 |
sure a suitable bugzilla script wiz could do that relatively |
| 26 |
easily. Users who care about such bugs can still comment on them, or |
| 27 |
talk directly to the assigned dev to highlight it's still a relevant |
| 28 |
issue to them, or even to supply a solution against the current tree. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
It could be an ongoing policy, in which case, users who care about |
| 31 |
them can keep bugs alive simply by posting useful updates to the bug, |
| 32 |
describing how the issue still applies to a new revision for example. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Just a thought from an old ex-dev... |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Kev. |
Archives