On 2008-03-11, 15:23 GMT, John Poelstra wrote: > If someone cannot re-confirm the existence of a problem it is > better to close the bug and move on. In my experience if the > problem occurs in a later version it will get reported again > and if it is important enough it will get fixed. I would agree > this is not the most efficient or ideal scenario, but neither > is trying to search and fix 20,000 open bugs... the result if > we stay on our present course. I totally agree with most of what you are saying, but as a bug triager (who just clears up backlog of now only 979 Xorg+gecko open bugs -- we were over 3,000 before) I would have to say that there is a lot of bug triaging which could help. Of course we should mercilessly close obsolete bugs, but there is a lot of stuff we can do even with the current bugs IMHO. For some reasons which are not important in the moment I browsed yesterday through this list of all open bugs against NetworkManager -- http://tinyurl.com/2h84g8 I don't want to pick up on Dan, because I think he does great job as a developer, but it seems to me (and I don't understand NetworkManager to be sure about that), that he could use some good bug triaging for his bugs. There seems to be a zillion of duplicates and (which is hard to tell without understanding the issues there) probably many bugs should be moved somewhere else (namely, kernel drivers). Of course, NM is a complicated program, but I don't think it should have 242 bugs opened. Just to warn against any easy solutions to our 20,000 opened bugs. Matěj -- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
