On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 11:54:30PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > What is the underlying problem here anyway? > I've never been hugely convinced there is one, but the problem people > *claim* there is is that closing bugs on EOL releases gives a bad > impression to people who report the bugs. We're terrible at numbers, but subjectively, people complain to me about this at conferences a lot. > Why do you think they're any more likely to get a response if the bug > stays open? Here's one case: a relatively stable package where there are small RFE bugs, or spelling fixes, or packaging improvements which are clearly right but have low practical impact. These are good things to do, but maybe the maintainer doesn't have lot of time for that particular package. A new upstream version comes out every couple of years. When that update happens, the maintainer might do an update, and look through all the open bugs to make sure they're covered. If they got auto-closed, it never happens. I know ideally maintainers should be making those changes in rawhide all the time as the bugs come in, but.... time. > > I've posted about it in 2008 already, and I still think the auto-closing > > leads to hiding crap under the carpet. > We already don't have enough time to look after all the open bugs we > have. Why are things going to be better if we have more? Yeah, closed or open, it would be nice to have better triage, but that's a huge job with very little reward and extremely high burnout. As I said at the end of my other message with the handwaving, if someone has a clever way to automatically identify the most important candidates from the thousands, that would be very useful. -- Matthew Miller -- Fedora Project -- <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
