----- Original Message ----- > On 12/4/2013 2:30 PM, Lawrence Mandel wrote: > > I think David, Nick, Henri, and you are right - there are lots of old bugs > > that we each think are important enough to fix. (Yes, I have some as > > well.) In my mind the real question is, given all of the work that we all > > have to do, are we going to spend the time to fix these bugs? If not, as a > > reporter would you prefer to see your bug go untouched for an > > indeterminate amount of time or would you prefer to see an acknowledgement > > that your bug will not be fixed at which point you can either shrug your > > shoulders or make a stronger case for why the bug should be fixed? > > WONTFIX resolutions presently mean something extremely strong: if > someone were to propose a patch to fix the bug, it would be rejected, > even if it otherwise satisfied code quality constraints. There are > notable instances of this condition where the resolution was made, even > over vocal opposition (the Restore MNG bug is the most infamous example; > the Hashcash spam bug is a more recent example). Changing this to mean > "we don't have realistic time to fix this" dilutes the message that > WONTFIX sends when it's really needed.
Thank you for this clarification. Many of the arguments that I've read/heard make a lot of sense in this context. > Quite frankly, closing valid, actionable old bugs (I make this > distinction, because there are old reports where the information > provided is useless for attempting to understand what's wrong) sends a > wrong message to contributors. It also makes it harder for eager > contributors to find bugs to work on--many of the first bugs I worked on > *were* the 10 year-old bugs that no one was fixing. Several people have made a similar comment. As long as people are finding value in the current system, there is good there. Lawrence _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
