Raymond Hettinger wrote:
>> I've seen some systems that solve this problem by allowing users to
> "vote"
>> for favorite bugs... then you can tell the "important" bugs because
> they
>> are more likely to have lots of votes. As I see it, Facundo is using a
>> variant of that system. He is asking wh
> I've seen some systems that solve this problem by allowing users to
"vote"
> for favorite bugs... then you can tell the "important" bugs because
they
> are more likely to have lots of votes. As I see it, Facundo is using a
> variant of that system. He is asking whether there is *ONE PERSON* out
>
Raymond writes:
> Is there anyone else on python-dev who thinks it's a bad idea to automatically
> close reports without checking whether the issue is real?
Raymond:
I'm speaking up with some trepidation here, since I am NOT one of those
who frequently closes bugs. But I think that at least somet
> > Old age and a missing OP is not sufficient reason to close a bug.
> >
> > But if closing a bug is an effective way of kicking things into life
> > again...
>
> I'm seeing this effect in a lot of bugs I closed as old ones.
That means they shouldn't have been closed and that we almost lost a v
On 6/1/05, Michael Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Old age and a missing OP is not sufficient reason to close a bug.
>
> But if closing a bug is an effective way of kicking things into life
> again...
I'm seeing this effect in a lot of bugs I closed as old ones. I think
that using the mail
"Raymond Hettinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There should be some greater care exercised in closing old bugs.
Possibly. OTOH, we have something like 900 open bugs to work on, and
it's not like bug reporters can't re-open a bug report if they think
it's been closed in error (this has happene
There should be some greater care exercised in closing old bugs.
Marking them "deprecated" and then erasing them is only a good strategy
if we have no means of reproducing the error or ascertaining what the OP
was talking about.
For instance, in www.python.org/sf/640553 , it was possible for a
re
