On 2013-11-27 2:36 AM, Gabriele Svelto wrote:
While looking through bugzilla I often stumble in my searches on old
bugs - sometimes very old - which after a quick look I realize have
either already been fixed or won't be (because they pertain to some old,
unsupported platform for example).
Much
>- 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.
On Thursday, December 5, 2013 2:50:39 PM UTC-5, Robert Kaiser wrote:
> Lawrence Mandel schrieb:
>
> > 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.
Mass auto-closing bugs based on criteria having nothing to do with the con
Lawrence Mandel schrieb:
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.
You see what kind of reactions that brings up? ;-)
I have tried something like that years ago in the SeaMonkey project, and
after a lot of discussion w
- 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
On 04/12/2013 20:30, Lawrence Mandel wrote:
- Original Message -
On 12/3/2013 11:15 PM, Lawrence Mandel wrote:
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
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 spe
On 12/04/2013 09:30 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 spen
On 12/4/13 3:17 PM, Lawrence Mandel wrote:
Very true. However, at least in this case, if the bug had been closed at some
point, the issue still would have surfaced when it became relevant due to the
filing of duplicate bug 924048. In fact, there are 42 duplicates of this bug
that have been fil
- Original Message -
> On 12/3/2013 11:15 PM, Lawrence Mandel wrote:
> > 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
> >
- Original Message -
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 9:15 PM, Lawrence Mandel 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.
>
> I strongly disagree with this statement, and any follow-on implication
> that b
- Original Message -
> On Tuesday 2013-12-03 21:15 -0800, Lawrence Mandel wrote:
> > 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 follow
- Original Message -
> Opened that long ago, and haven't been touched for a long time? Or just
> opened that long ago?
My simple query was based on bug creation date. The handful of bugs that I
looked at I think hadn't been meaningfully touched in at least 5 years.
Lawrence
> --
> - Mi
On 12/3/2013 11:15 PM, Lawrence Mandel wrote:
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
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Lawrence Mandel 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 earli
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 9:15 PM, Lawrence Mandel 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.
I strongly disagree with this statement, and any follow-on implication
that blanket-closing bugs based on age is accept
On Tuesday 2013-12-03 21:15 -0800, Lawrence Mandel wrote:
> 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?
> bug 3246 - Core::
Opened that long ago, and haven't been touched for a long time? Or just opened
that long ago?
--
- Milan
On 2013-12-04, at 14:15 , Lawrence Mandel wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> Lawrence Mandel writes:
>>
>>> - Original Message -
On 27/11/13 07:36, Gabriele Svelto wrote
- Original Message -
> Lawrence Mandel writes:
>
> > - Original Message -
> >> On 27/11/13 07:36, Gabriele Svelto wrote:
> >> > I'm always tempted to close the former as duplicates of the
> >> > actual fix and the latter as WONTFIX so that they won't show
> >> > up on the following
Lawrence Mandel writes:
> - Original Message -
>> On 27/11/13 07:36, Gabriele Svelto wrote:
>> > I'm always tempted to close the former as duplicates of the
>> > actual fix and the latter as WONTFIX so that they won't show
>> > up on the following searches but I'm also afraid that closing
- Original Message -
> On 27/11/13 07:36, Gabriele Svelto wrote:
> > I'm always tempted to close the former as duplicates of the actual fix
> > and the latter as WONTFIX so that they won't show up on the following
> > searches but I'm also afraid that closing a bug several years old is
> >
On 27/11/13 07:36, Gabriele Svelto wrote:
> I'm always tempted to close the former as duplicates of the actual fix
> and the latter as WONTFIX so that they won't show up on the following
> searches but I'm also afraid that closing a bug several years old is
> akin to thread necromancy [1].
Validly
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Gabriele Svelto wrote:
> What's the general feeling about this? The relevant MDN page [2] mentions
> that WONTFIX should only be used by module owners and peers so that also
> makes me wary of using it even though in some cases I'm pretty sure a bug
> won't ever be
While looking through bugzilla I often stumble in my searches on old
bugs - sometimes very old - which after a quick look I realize have
either already been fixed or won't be (because they pertain to some old,
unsupported platform for example).
I'm always tempted to close the former as duplica
24 matches
Mail list logo
