openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Marcus (OOo)" <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Remove old bugs.
Date Fri, 18 May 2012 22:56:38 GMT
Am 05/19/2012 12:36 AM, schrieb Raphael Bircher:
> Am 19.05.12 00:19, schrieb Marcus (OOo):
>> Am 05/18/2012 11:55 PM, schrieb Raphael Bircher:
>>> Am 18.05.12 22:52, schrieb Kayo Hamid:
>>>>    From ooo-qa. We can see a lot old bugs on Can we
>>>> begin
>>>> removing? It's a key thing for project? I volunteer to this.
>>>> Eg, (10 years old)
>>> The age of the bug does not automaticly mean that they are solved. If
>>> they are CONFIRMED you can recheck them. Sametimes the are realy solved,
>>> but the moast are still valid issues. Same issues we can cloase, for
>>> exemple if they are Win98 only or so.
>>> Unconfirmed issues who are older then 2 years we can realy close I
>>> think.
>>> Greetings Raphael
>>> PS: Welcome to the black hole Bugzilla ;-)
>> In general closing bugs because they are simply too old is a clear -1
>> for me.
>> Of course, only a closed bug is a good bug. But you need a good reason
>> for closing them. The reasons are given as resolved status in BZ. I
>> don't see "Closed, Too Old" there. ;-)
> I said UNCONFIRMED, not every bug. They stey moastly unconfirmed because
> no one was able to reproduce it.  And so it was maybe a crapt system or
> so. I normaly short read the bug, and than deside to close ore not.
> Sametimes there are also comments like "please add more informations",
> or samething like that. If there is no answare I close the bug often
> with a comment like "We missing the addidional informations, so I wil
> close the bug now. feel free to reopen it or create a new one."
> Confirmed bugs you should handle much more carefull, because they are
> moastly valid issues.

Of course your are right. I think I've taken the wrong posting for my 
reply. Sorry.

>> So, please try to check first if the issue:
>> - is already solved
>> - is no longer relevant due to license and therefore code change
>> - is not reproducible with its problem description
>> - is invalid as it's no real bug report, etc.
> +1
> Greetings Raphael


View raw message