Ralph Goers wrote:
>
>
> Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>
>> Le 10 oct. 05, à 16:07, hepabolu a écrit :
>>
>>> ...while looking at Bugzilla I noticed some open bugs entered as far
>>> back as 2002. Could someone have a look and do _something_ about it?
>>> It's not a good sign that bugs are open thatlong...
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't think we'll ever get there, my last count says we have 303
>> open bugzilla issues, and my perception is that we have little
>> collective energy to analyze and prioritize them, we've been chasing
>> this for months now without significant results.
>>
>> How about doing a "bug amnesty" as follows?
>>
>> 1) Set ALL Cocoon2 open issues to WONTFIX state, with a comment like
>> BUG_AMNESTY_2005_10 and a link to a wiki page explaning what's
>> happening.
>>
>> This will send a mail to bug reporters, people in CC etc. to give
>> them a chance to react.
>>
>> 2) In the explanation, ask people who receive these mails to reopen
>> the issue if they think it is still current, if their patch still
>> does make sense, etc.
>> Explain that the goal is to have an up-to-date list of relevant issues.
>>
>> This would allow collaborative cleanup of the list of issues by the
>> people who are interested in them. We might miss a few issues if
>> people don't reply, but they'd be marked with BUG_AMNESTY_2005_10 in
>> the comments if we need them back, so easy to find.
>>
>> Without such a scheme, I'm afraid we'll drag this list forever
>> without being able to separate the wheat from the chaff.
>>
>> WDYT?
>>
>> -Bertrand
>
>
> I wouldn't do this with all bugs, but if a bug has been opened for 6
> months or perhaps a year or more and has had no activity then I think
> changing its status to EXPIRED would be appropriate. It can always be
> reopened and fixed.
No, because it becomes invisible. Hidding reported bugs is a bad idea.
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo.
|