On 7/11/06, Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 02:09:35PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > As I did with FC2 long ago, I'm going to go through and mark all open FC3 > bugs as "needinfo". This is a last-ditch attempt to make sure any of those > that really need to be addressed by Fedora Legacy get the attention they > need, and that anything still open that's still an issue in current releases > doesn't get lost forever. So, this seems to be going pretty well. Of the 1100+ bugs, only two angry responses about how the bug should have been fixed long ago, and quite a lot of helpful action. So, I'm going to go and get the 148 FC1 bugs still open, which I never did. That should be pretty straightforward -- I'll add the note that Legacy isn't going to be doing FC1 for much longer either. *Then*, there's the question of _before_ that. There's 1051 bugs in open states attached to the "Red Hat Linux" and "Red Hat Linux Beta" products. Obviously a lot of that isn't going to be helpful or interesting after all these years -- and RHL9 is finally going out of Legacy support too. However, it's possible that there's some overlooked important/useful/still-relevant reports that would still apply to Fedora or RHEL. Does it seem worth it to stir this up?
Yes.. I did one of these back in 2001 where I went through the first 3000 tickets to see what was still available. A lot of the things were still outstanding (I have 2 bugs in NEW state from RHL9 that may still occur or were feature requests). I would go with a 30-60 day NEEDINFO -> CLOSED. IF the problem is still around and can be reproduced or the person hasnt changed to Ubuntu because something hasnt had its state changed in 5 years... then it should be managed from above after that. -- Stephen J Smoogen. CSIRT/Linux System Administrator
