Clean up BFAV?

Ken Causey ken at
Thu Jan 8 17:38:56 UTC 2004

Re: 'explaining why' and 'the plan'


I'm not sure I understand.  Are you saying you think the posts that are
being closed for 'timeout' reasons should also include this markup for
why?  Assuming that's what you mean I have to disagree.  That is exactly
what is taking up so much time now.  We just need to decide on a date
and close every post prior to that date unconditionally.

All concerned,

If we can finalize a plan I would be happy to work on this over the next
few days.

Currently I'm seeing the following plan:

Write some code to do the following:

Send an email to the squeak-harvest list and the original poster (first
post in the group) marking the thread as closed for timeout reasons and
explaining briefly including comments that they are free to repost if
they still consider the issue relevant.

Is 'the date' going to be '1/1/2003'?


On Thu, 2004-01-08 at 11:26, Brent Vukmer 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.
> > >
> > 
> > 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 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url :

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list