Clean up BFAV?

Brent Vukmer bvukmer at
Thu Jan 8 17:26:09 UTC 2004

> >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.
> >
> Sounds like a reasonable plan.  One thing I would request is that for 
> these automatic-timeout closings, maybe we should add an extra tag in 
> the subject, such as [closed][timeout], to make it clear why the item 
> was closed.

I like Cees and Ken's plan, and think it would be very helpful to use
the [timeout] tag that Doug suggests.  I think people should imitate
Ken's approach, though - when evaluating an older group of posts that
should be closed, please *explain why*.  That is, please note whether
the issue reported is:

1.  Already incorporated 

2.  Irrelevant because 
	(a) the code in question either doesn't exist anymore 
	(b) has been changed significantly

3.  Unreviewable 
	(a) not enough information in the posts to understand the issue
being reported and/or
	(b) no attachments 

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list