From: Dominik Riebeling <dominik.riebeling_at_gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 10:29:57 +0200

> well, we do want to be sure there's no actual bug there.

what's against closing old tasks that have no response for some time
(like 3+ or 6+ month) and also don't have any valid reporter (like old
ones that were imported from sf or anonymous ones)? If we can't
reproduce that bug anymore such a report only will mess up Flyspray.
Currently we have about 1000 open tasks, and if old tasks are
forgotten or closed doesn't change pretty much.

> but that shouldn't be a reason to close it. But if we can't reproduce
> it we have little choice :/

If we can't reproduce it and have no response from the reporter (or no
possibility reacing the reporter) I'd be for closing that tasks. Users
tend to report anything (and always scream "bug" if something doesn't
work as they want it to), and that also includes "bugs" that the
reporter has meaning not reading the documentation, not being aware of
how rockbox is intended to work and so on.
I recently had a nice case showing just this (not rockbox related),
where a colleague of mine was screaming "bug! bug!" about a window
focusing behaviour of the instant messenger Psi. He already wanted to
report this as a bug (from which I tried to keep him away all the
time) as it actually was windows fault (which I told him various
times, it works for me and I got it working also on his machine). And
that guy has in some areas a pretty good knowledge of computers.

To say it in other words, IMO if we close an old bug that is actually
a bug more or less accidentally some user will report it again sooner
or later.

just my 2¢,

 - Dominik
Received on 2006-07-16