From: Jonathan Gordon <jdgordy_at_gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 18:37:17 +1000

On 16/07/06, Dominik Riebeling <dominik.riebeling_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.
>
ye thats my feeling as well.. i mean, we can close it and say if this
is still a bug repost it.

> just my 2¢,
>
> - Dominik
>
>
Received on 2006-07-16