[squeak-dev] Re: Mantis status meanings

Bert Freudenberg bert at freudenbergs.de
Tue Sep 7 15:39:50 UTC 2010


On 07.09.2010, at 17:03, Hannes Hirzel wrote:

> Andreas,
> 
> On 9/7/10, Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:
>> On 9/6/2010 8:32 PM, Sean P. DeNigris wrote:
>>> Ken Causey wrote:
> ...snip...
>> 
>> The reality is that Mantis is completely overloaded with old crap. And
>> we lack the man power to keep it current (if you're willing to help
>> you're more than welcome). I think that what we should probably do is to
>> just close all bugs older than two years to get a handle on it.
> 
> I support this proposal. We could just mark them as 'Expired' with a
> note saying something like.
> 
> "This bug has not had any attention for more than two years so it is
> considered to be 'Expired' and was closed. It might be that the issue
> has been addressed in the latest Squeak 4.1 trunk image, it might as
> well be that the issue is still open or it could be that it does not
> apply anymore. If you are interested in this bug please do further
> investigations and consider reopening it again".
> 
> Or
>> perhaps close 'em all and start over. The real problem with bug trackers
>> is that if they're not kept current all the time they tend to simply
>> overflow.
> 
> YES.

-1.

IMHO just closing old bugs is not going to improve anything. What do we gain from doing that?

Closing a bug just because nobody can be bothered to look right now is bad style, IMHO. Somebody took the time to report it. We should honor that.

I do support cleaning up the tracker, and closing tickets that are not relevant anymore. But age of the ticket is no indication of relevance.

- Bert -




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list