well, we do want to be sure there's no actual bug there.
what's against closing old tasks that have no response for some time (like 3+ or 6+ month) and also don't have any valid reporter (like old ones that were imported from sf or anonymous ones)? If we can't reproduce that bug anymore such a report only will mess up Flyspray. Currently we have about 1000 open tasks, and if old tasks are forgotten or closed doesn't change pretty much.
but that shouldn't be a reason to close it. But if we can't reproduce it we have little choice :/
If we can't reproduce it and have no response from the reporter (or no possibility reacing the reporter) I'd be for closing that tasks. Users tend to report anything (and always scream "bug" if something doesn't work as they want it to), and that also includes "bugs" that the reporter has meaning not reading the documentation, not being aware of how rockbox is intended to work and so on. I recently had a nice case showing just this (not rockbox related), where a colleague of mine was screaming "bug! bug!" about a window focusing behaviour of the instant messenger Psi. He already wanted to report this as a bug (from which I tried to keep him away all the time) as it actually was windows fault (which I told him various times, it works for me and I got it working also on his machine). And that guy has in some areas a pretty good knowledge of computers. To say it in other words, IMO if we close an old bug that is actually a bug more or less accidentally some user will report it again sooner or later. just my 2ยข, - Dominik
