Hi Richard. I agree with not wishing things to disappear. However -

"Richard A. O'Keefe" <ok at cs.otago.ac.nz> wrote:
> The fact that old fixes "rot" is precisely why they should be given
> the highest priority and cleaned up before new fixes are put in.
> The absence of a fix can occasionally give a false impression about
> what can be done to the rest of the system.  Just because a fix hasn't
> been *harvested* doesn't mean it isn't being *used*.
The only person capable of fixing this situation is the person using the
fix, by posting that the fix is tested and works. As far as a harvester
is concerned, there is no easy way to find "previous relevant fixes". In
the absence of something to focus the attention on specific useful old
fixes, I at least feel unconvinced that the old ones are more important
than the new ones, and therefore uninclined to prioritize them.

Daniel