On Fri, Nov 2, 2018, 06:24 Luca Toscano <toscano.l...@gmail.com wrote: > Il giorno gio 1 nov 2018 alle ore 22:35 William A Rowe Jr > <wr...@rowe-clan.net> ha scritto: > > > > To keep this thread moving (additional feedback is welcomed and > appreciated)... > > Thanks a lot for this effort William, I really think that having 1700+ > bugs opened does not look good for any reporter/user that doesn't know > how we work, since it is easy to get the impression that bugs are > simply opened to take dust for ages (thing that doesn't really > happen). > > > > > > So I'd read this as the bug needs to be reproduced with a "later" > version of httpd, and is subject to reconsideration "later" on further > review, but may have already been resolved in a "later" release. > > The RESOLVED/FUTURE seems a bit confusing from my point of view, but I > don't really have any good suggestion.. I would personally stick with > something that clearly indicates that the bug was closed due to being > too old. > > [Generic text comment proposed] > > +1 nice! > > > Edits noted, thanks! >
It seems I should define that this bug may be reevaluated "LATER" and we are asking for their help to close or reopen against a current flavor. I'll work up a small tweak to the language we've agreed on. We've given this enough cycles, I'll proceed to the initial step. Looking for any tweaks which might let bugs mentioning "2.4." in the discussing to be calldd out for manual reevaluation.
