From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Pxn24-0006mT-PH for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 21:04:29 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F07991C058; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 21:04:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1F021C068 for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 21:03:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DFE21B4046 for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 21:03:37 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -2.522 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.522 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.077, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RyBemVk-EP6Q for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 21:03:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DD3B1B41DA for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 21:03:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Pxn10-0006HN-OY for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 22:03:22 +0100 Received: from ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.231.22.224]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 22:03:22 +0100 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 22:03:22 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Quantity of open bugs Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 21:03:09 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <20110307130425.3C1ED1C042@pigeon.gentoo.org> <20110310202510.45627780@athlong2.kevquinn.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: Pan/0.134 (Wait for Me; GIT 9383aac branch-testing) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 106e33d93d778f72439c080523e4baba Kevin F. Quinn posted on Thu, 10 Mar 2011 20:25:10 +0000 as excerpted: > Hi all, >=20 > I was nosing through bugzilla, and noticed: >=20 > * Number of open bugs is greater than 14,000 > * open bugs untouched > 2 years - well over 2000. > * open bugs untouched 1 - 2 years - well over 2000. > * open bugs untouched 6 mo to 1 year - well over 2000. > * open bugs untouched 3 - 6 months - over 2000 >=20 > The winner is bug #78406, which hasn't been touched for over 2240 days = - > over 6 years - at the time of writing. >=20 > I would guess these old untouched bugs aren't actually going to be > touched, ever - a lot simply won't be relevant any more for one reason > or another. All they're doing is cluttering up bugzilla. >=20 >=20 > So I'd like to suggest a drastic, perhaps controversial action. Mark > all bugs that haven't been touched for over (say) 3 months as > "Resolved:Wontfix", with a polite comment saying that it is closed due > to lack of resource amongst the volunteer developer community. You have a point, but for the way Gentoo works, 3 months is rather too=20 short. Gentoo tracks all sorts of not-ordinarily-considered-bugs as bugs= ,=20 and some of the stuff tracked is long-term projects. I've had (gentoo=20 initscript feature) bugs complete with patches sit for > six months,=20 before the Gentoo package maintainer had time to look at it and say yeah,= =20 the idea looks good. Another user ended up updating the patch before it=20 was applied, as stuff /had/ changed, but it /was/ eventually applied. =20 Meanwhile, both the other user and I (and who knows if anyone else) had=20 been using the feature in our own initscripts, keeping it working, etc,=20 but the package didn't turn over /that/ frequently, and over a year to=20 resolve with a six-month and a three-month idle period wasn't /that/ bad=20 -- certainly considering that the patch and feature ultimately got in, an= d=20 it wouldn't have with your proposal unless someone simply bumped the bug=20 for no other reason than to keep it open. Arguably, a year might be better, or possibly six months, but certainly,=20 the auto-close message should urge the user to re-open if it's still=20 appropriate. But I'm not sure even that will go over well. Maybe two=20 years or five years... because arguably at five years, no matter what th= e=20 bug is, if it's still valid, it really /needs/ updated, since so much=20 around it will have changed. --=20 Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman