On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Lawrence Mandel <lman...@mozilla.com> wrote: > I would assert that if a bug hasn't been fixed in 10 years it probably isn't > important enough to spend time on now. We can always reopen or refile if the > issue becomes more pressing (by anyone's judgement).
I disagree. As I said earlier, closing bugs by age is really bad for bug reporter motivation. Furthermore, old bugs may become worth fixing when the circumstances change (other browsers catch up) or the level of understanding of the issues changes. As an anecdote, within the last 7 days, I've written a patch for a decade-old bug that's only relevant to legacy sites in India, Armenia and potentially Georgia. That's a bug that Chrome devs felt worth fixing in Chrome just 5 years ago. Chrome is doing better than we are in terms of market share in those countries, so it might well be worth a tiny bit of effort to make the long tail of legacy sites work (for some definition of "work") so that there's no reason not to choose Firefox because of the legacy long tail. Also, having had the bug open for a decade provides useful information of the relative fringe nature of the issue in question and indicates that it doesn't make sense to put a lot of work in developing a more polished fix than the crudest hack that's known to work for Chrome. -- Henri Sivonen hsivo...@hsivonen.fi http://hsivonen.fi/ _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
