Zakk Roberts wrote:
It's saying that this ought to be fixed,
nobody's arguing that, so let's get it out of the way of the real
bugs, and if it does happen to show up later, we can open a new one.
I agree. It's not that we close them as "fixed". We close them as
"Out-of-date" because of lack of
I think it should certainly be closed.
For one, work must have been done to alleviate the problem. Secondly,
the person who's asking "is it fixed yet?" must have tried and been
unable to reproduce it. Thirdly, nobody's commenting, so leaving it
open is just kind of "it should be fixed but we don'
Jonathan Gordon wrote:
> hey,
> i was having a quick look through the bug reports and especially the
> old ones have had no comments for 3+ months except asking weather the
> bug still exsists.
> How long do we wait for an answer before closing the reports?
Don't forget that Rockbox has been in fe
On 16/07/06, Dominik Riebeling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 anon
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 r
> i was having a quick look through the bug reports and
> especially the old ones have had no comments for 3+ months
> except asking weather the bug still exsists. How long do we
> wait for an answer before closing the reports?
well, we do want to be sure there's no actual bug there.
I agree it
