From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-31 05:35:23
>>> Opened in 2002 - 9
>>> Opened in 2003 - 3
>>> Opened in 2004 - 12
>>> Opened in 2005 - 37
>>> Seems to me that the 24 issues that are now over a year old really
>>> should be evaluated for validaty or closed as unlikely to ever be
>>> fixed. Thoughts?
I'm actually encouraged that there are as few as 24 "old" issues still open,
we probably ought to try and do something about them though...
>> I agree that they should be evaluated for validity. I'll bet that a
>> lot of them have been fixed; since I started nagging people, many
>> bugs have been closed with "oh yeah - that was fixed in 1.32" type
>> comments. If they're still valid bugs, and are on supported
>> platforms, then they should be remain open until they are fixed.
> I don't know if we can invent new states, but if we could it would be
> nice to move some of these to open-no-maintainer. The other question
> is -- does the originator care, at this point, about a 3 year old
> unfixed bug? If they
> haven't gotten a fix by no it seems likely that they worked around it
> or moved on.
> Just thinking out loud here on how to improve the process...
Also thinking out loud, could we get 12 volunteers to check two each? I bet
most could be closed as "already fixed", and a few others would probably be
either trivial to fix, not a bug, or because the user is using VC6!
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk