>----- Original Message ----- >> Lawrence Mandel writes: >> Someone else may like to fix the bugs, so please don't close the >> bugs if it is reasonably likely that they may still be present. >> >> To try to be clear, I'm agreeing with Henri and Gerv, but I'm not >> sure that Lawrence understands. > >I'm taking a stronger stance and suggesting that we should be able to >wontfix bugs that likely aren't worth anyone's time or attention. As a >concrete example, what is the value in keeping the following bugs open? [snip] >In fact, there at 6925 bugs across all Bugzilla products currently in the >new or unconfirmed state that were opened more than 10 years ago. 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'll note that when I started at Mozilla (and in fact before I started - when I revved up my involvement after a long period of being overcommitted in my day job) one of the first things I did was fix and close a bunch of 10-year-old bugs I'd filed that were still open and still real (some were perf bugs). I do understand the motivation; perhaps old inactive open bugs can be tagged in some manner automatically (though careful that the tagging itself doesn't invalidate the "inactive" part). And I have no problem with closing bugs as WONTFIX that we in fact won't fix for a reason, or if they're no longer valid (the biggest chunk!) INVALIDing. -- Randell Jesup, Mozilla Corp remove "news" for personal email _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
