On Sep 26, 2013, at 2:34 PM, "Sean P. DeNigris" <s...@clipperadams.com> wrote:
> Thank you for taking care of this, Marcus!
>
> While we're on the subject, there have been some issues which were not
> resolved that were closed due to e.g. inactivity. I totally understand the
> need to keep the bug tracker to a manageable size, but I feel that something
> is lost when we do this. For example, a few times I've encountered a bug,
> felt like I'd seen it before, checked the issue tracker and didn't see it
> even though I was pretty sure I had already reported it, only to find out
> after a bit of head-scratching that I had reported it, it still existed, but
> had been closed. I find it very confusing.
>
> Thinking about how to have it all, I thought that we should have a status
> especially for these cases, so that they still exist, but can be easily
> filtered out; something like "Stale". Actually, then we can probably be even
> more agressive tagging them and getting them out of the way because they
> will not disappear. My feeling is that this is still an "Active" status,
> because there are definitely some long-standing bugs that we continuously
> gather info about and there should be an obvious place to gather those bits.
> On the other hand, even if it was a "Resolved" status, at least I'd know
> right where to look if I didn't see my issue and could have a filter to
> easily revive an inactive issue that was found to still be a problem.
>
> What do you think?
>
The problem is that if we have over 500 entries, people just give up.
They say "what use is it to fix 1, there are just too many".
And just how important is an issue that had no activity for 3 years?
Marcus
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
