1 |
On 03/10/2011 02:25 PM, 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 |
I think Duncan has already covered the major points I was going to |
21 |
mention: particularly with respect to the fact that we are all |
22 |
volunteers and thus subject to resource constraints that other projects |
23 |
might not have. I realize that it is frustrating to a user to have a |
24 |
bug sit for a year (or more) without ever being resolved (or even looked |
25 |
at), but there is really only one way to resolve that: get someone who |
26 |
has the time and expertise to step in and fill the gap. Given that we |
27 |
can't exactly hold a gun to people's heads and MAKE them work on Gentoo |
28 |
stuff (nor would I personally be inclined to trust code produced using |
29 |
such methods), I really don't see another alternative. |
30 |
|
31 |
We closed a number of bugs related to SELinux recently; many of those |
32 |
bugs had been open for quite some time and things had changed |
33 |
sufficiently that we believed that the bug itself was no longer |
34 |
relevant, or we needed feedback from the user and didn't get any. Some |
35 |
of those bugs had been open for a couple of years. But we reviewed EACH |
36 |
of those bugs and made a decision on a case-by-case basis. |
37 |
|
38 |
I understand and appreciate the desire to close open bugs that are |
39 |
cluttering up the bugzilla. Not only do they create extra cruft for |
40 |
everyone to wade through, they also make Gentoo look bad (my GOD, |
41 |
they've got open bugs dating back to the founding of the Roman |
42 |
Empire!). However, I'm not convinced that blanket closing bugs that are |
43 |
over x days (weeks, months, years) is the best (or even desirable) approach. |
44 |
|
45 |
If a bug is related to a package that no longer exists, then it seems |
46 |
pretty obvious that there is no need to keep the bug around. |
47 |
|
48 |
If the bug is waiting on feedback from a user, and that user hasn't |
49 |
provided the requested feedback in, say, 60 days (after a bump to the |
50 |
bug) then I'd say that the bug is arguably no longer of importance to |
51 |
the user, or at least the email address we have on file for that user |
52 |
doesn't work any more. |
53 |
|
54 |
Beyond those two conditions, I'd really be loathe to close anything |
55 |
without good evidence to indicate that it either is no longer relevant, |
56 |
or it can't be fixed. |
57 |
|
58 |
Just my $0.02 (not adjusted for currency devaluation) |
59 |
|
60 |
Later, |
61 |
Gizmo |