RFC: Bug database cleaning

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RFC: Bug database cleaning

Keith Seitz
Hi,

Most regulars probably know that I don't respond to bugs quite as
quickly as I should: I just seldom use the bug database -- largely
because as I respond to bugs, I seldom hear back from users.

As a result, the bug database is quite a bit larger than it should be.
So, I would like to close all bugs older than approximately one year.
That would affect any bug # less than 306.

Any one have any objections to this?

Keith
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: Bug database cleaning

Kip Warner
On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 17:17 -0800, Keith Seitz wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Most regulars probably know that I don't respond to bugs quite as
> quickly as I should: I just seldom use the bug database -- largely
> because as I respond to bugs, I seldom hear back from users.
>
> As a result, the bug database is quite a bit larger than it should be.
> So, I would like to close all bugs older than approximately one year.
> That would affect any bug # less than 306.
>
> Any one have any objections to this?
Provided those bugs on the tracker have been deemed invalid / closed /
resolved / patched / duplicate / whatever, then yes, of course.
Otherwise, you are losing a great deal of valuable information and the
fact that they just old doesn't really seem like reason enough to delete
them.

--
Kip Warner -- Software Engineer
OpenPGP encrypted/signed mail preferred
http://www.thevertigo.com

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bug database cleaning

terptom
In reply to this post by Keith Seitz

----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Seitz" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>; "insight" <[hidden email]>
{snip}
>I just seldom use the bug database
{snip}
> the bug database is quite a bit larger than it should be.
{snip}

Could those two things *possibly* be related???

 >I would like to close all bugs older than approximately one year.
{snip}
>Any one have any objections to this?

Yes.

People are much less likely to put in a 'fresh' bug report if an entry is already in the bug-base.

Q:  "When is a problem not a problem?"

A: "When I ignore it for more than a year."

Bugs die of lonliness when left uncorrected?

Please consider each case on its technical merits, not longevity.

Else, one or more of us could while away a pleasant evening 'refreshing' all entries with accession numbers <306...

Does that make sense?






Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bug database cleaning

Keith Seitz
terptom wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Keith Seitz" <[hidden email]>
> To: <[hidden email]>; "insight" <[hidden email]>
> {snip}
>> I just seldom use the bug database
> {snip}
>> the bug database is quite a bit larger than it should be.
> {snip}
>
> Could those two things *possibly* be related???

Are you offering to help?

> People are much less likely to put in a 'fresh' bug report if an entry is already in the bug-base.
>
> Q:  "When is a problem not a problem?"
>
> A: "When I ignore it for more than a year."
>
> Bugs die of lonliness when left uncorrected?

Let me restate: Does any one mind if I close bugs which I cannot
reproduce in CVS HEAD and are in released versions of insight older than
a year-ish (aka anything earlier than 6.6 or maybe 6.5).

I apologize for being a big vague.

Keith