RFC: Bug database cleaning

RFC: Bug database cleaning

[Keith Seitz]

Hi,

Most regulars probably know that I don't respond to bugs quite as 
quickly as I should: I just seldom use the bug database -- largely 
because as I respond to bugs, I seldom hear back from users.

As a result, the bug database is quite a bit larger than it should be. 
So, I would like to close all bugs older than approximately one year. 
That would affect any bug # less than 306.

Any one have any objections to this?

Keith

Re: RFC: Bug database cleaning

[Kip Warner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 914 bytes --]

On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 17:17 -0800, Keith Seitz wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Most regulars probably know that I don't respond to bugs quite as 
> quickly as I should: I just seldom use the bug database -- largely 
> because as I respond to bugs, I seldom hear back from users.
> 
> As a result, the bug database is quite a bit larger than it should be. 
> So, I would like to close all bugs older than approximately one year. 
> That would affect any bug # less than 306.
> 
> Any one have any objections to this?

Provided those bugs on the tracker have been deemed invalid / closed /
resolved / patched / duplicate / whatever, then yes, of course.
Otherwise, you are losing a great deal of valuable information and the
fact that they just old doesn't really seem like reason enough to delete
them.

-- 
Kip Warner -- Software Engineer
OpenPGP encrypted/signed mail preferred
http://www.thevertigo.com

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: Bug database cleaning

[terptom]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Keith Seitz" <keiths@redhat.com>
To: <insight-announce@sourceware.org>; "insight" <insight@sourceware.org>
{snip}
>I just seldom use the bug database
{snip}
> the bug database is quite a bit larger than it should be. 
{snip}

Could those two things *possibly* be related???

 >I would like to close all bugs older than approximately one year. 
{snip}
>Any one have any objections to this?

Yes.

People are much less likely to put in a 'fresh' bug report if an entry is already in the bug-base.

Q:  "When is a problem not a problem?"

A: "When I ignore it for more than a year."

Bugs die of lonliness when left uncorrected?

Please consider each case on its technical merits, not longevity.

Else, one or more of us could while away a pleasant evening 'refreshing' all entries with accession numbers <306...

Does that make sense?

Re: Bug database cleaning

[Keith Seitz]

terptom wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Keith Seitz" <keiths@redhat.com>
> To: <insight-announce@sourceware.org>; "insight" <insight@sourceware.org>
> {snip}
>> I just seldom use the bug database
> {snip}
>> the bug database is quite a bit larger than it should be. 
> {snip}
> 
> Could those two things *possibly* be related???

Are you offering to help?

> People are much less likely to put in a 'fresh' bug report if an entry is already in the bug-base.
> 
> Q:  "When is a problem not a problem?"
> 
> A: "When I ignore it for more than a year."
> 
> Bugs die of lonliness when left uncorrected?

Let me restate: Does any one mind if I close bugs which I cannot 
reproduce in CVS HEAD and are in released versions of insight older than 
a year-ish (aka anything earlier than 6.6 or maybe 6.5).

I apologize for being a big vague.

Keith