Yes!

The most depressing thing about reviewing fixes is that you know you 
aren't going to make a dent.  And the most depressing thing about 
submitting fixes is that you know they may well get lost in all the 
volume.  If we could keep the list to 20-50 items then we would be far 
more likely to fire up BFAV and try to bring the list back down to 0.

Bugs and fixes that old either:

- won't be relevant anymore; or
- won't work in the new image anyway; or
- will be posted in an incorrect format (according to your examination)

I think there's so much chaffe in there, that we are more than justified 
in forcibly drafting the authors in to help separate the wheat.  And I'm 
personally willing to risk missing a few gems if the trade off is that 
the gems we all create in the future get integrated faster.

Julian

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).
>