Clean up BFAV?

ducasse ducasse at
Thu Jan 8 16:44:25 UTC 2004

> I spent some time along with Cees yesterday in trolling through old
> posts (which I've done a little of before) and find that I agree with
> Cees here.  Most of the oldest posts are either
> 1.  Already incorporated and should be closed anyway.
> 2.  Irrelevant because the code in question either doesn't exist 
> anymore
> or has been changed significantly.
> 3.  Incomplete threads missing enough information to understand the
> issue.
> 3.  Without the attachments the text of the messages is often
> insufficient to understand the issue.  Code communicates but not when
> the code isn't there anymore.
> I'm not sure of where exactly to draw the line but 12/31/2002 and 
> before
> seems like as good a place as any.  If the guides/harvesters will 
> simply
> give the word I will put in what free time I can find into closing each
> one.  For that matter I suppose a little code could be written to do 
> the
> job.  I for one would prefer that they are closed and not moved
> elsewhere so that they are still available simply by choosing to view
> closed threads.

Hi Ken

Thanks for your time. I agree with you but I will follow what doug says 
if he has
another point of view. I'm sure not :).
I like the idea of daniel of following the tags as a mark. I'm also for 
closing that
and moving it because moving mess does not sort it :).
Excellent so we will clean all that stuff.

> Ken
> On Wed, 2004-01-07 at 19:14, Cees de Groot wrote:
>> I've been going through the backlog of BFAV, and most of the very old
>> posts are either:
>> - bad mails with no attachments;
>> - stuff that has been fixed.
>> Therefore I suggest that for everything prior to, say, Dec 31, 2002, 
>> we:
>> 1. Inform the original poster that this bug is going to be 
>> automatically
>> closed;
>> 2. Close the bug.
>> The idea is that if the original author thinks the bug is still
>> worthwhile, he/she can resubmit it. This will let everyone concentrate
>> on stuff that is actually likely to work, BFAV will operate much 
>> faster,
>> and in effect asks all 'affected' authors to do a review of their old
>> work. I think in light of the sheer size of the backlog this is an
>> entirely reasonable action.
>> (an alternative would be to move the old stuff to a separate archive, 
>> or
>> make a special 'stalled' status you could select on).

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list