On 18.12.2012 18:29, Kalle Korhonen wrote: > Uli, let's not make this a religious argument. If we all compromise a bit
I'm not making this a religious argument. I simply don't see why we should delay cleaning the list any longer or put any of our valuable energy in outdated stuff. That's simply not economical. Half of these issues were last updated more than 2 years ago, almost all were updated more than a year ago. The last 5.0 (5.0.19) was released in 2009-12. 5.1.0.7 (last 5.1 release) was done in 2010-01. We are talking about issues affecting 3 year old and even older versions of our software. That simply doesn't make any sense to me. > we'll see that everyone wants the same thing, a smaller open bug count. Can > we just wait a bit for bulk closing anything, and in the meanwhile keep That's exactly what I wrote: >> If Robert wants to spend the time on it, I'm all for it. But I really want >> to see the list of open >> issues significantly reduced in the near future and I believe that the To rephrase: I'm OK with giving everybody a bit time to look at their favorite issues, assign them, update them, etc. But I want us to agree on a deadline when we will just close them. Can we agree on the following: 1. we compile a list of issues that we think can be closed for reasons of lacking interest, affecting outdated versions, being of low quality, or other reasons 2. we bulk-comment on those issues asking reporters and watchers to update them with more information by 2013-02-28 3. on 2013-03-01 we bulk-close those that are still open and haven't been updated Uli --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tapestry.apache.org
