From: Zakk Roberts <midkay_at_gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 00:42:20 -0700

I think it should certainly be closed.

For one, work must have been done to alleviate the problem. Secondly,
the person who's asking "is it fixed yet?" must have tried and been
unable to reproduce it. Thirdly, nobody's commenting, so leaving it
open is just kind of "it should be fixed but we don't know". And
finally, as mentioned before, if it's truly not fixed, someone else
will certainly report it. If it's been 3 months without comments,
however, it probably won't be re-reported.

I feel even somewhere around a few weeks is an adequate amount of
time. It's not like closing a report on something that has tried to
have been and probably *is* fixed is like saying "this bug is
certainly no longer present". It's saying that this ought to be fixed,
nobody's arguing that, so let's get it out of the way of the real
bugs, and if it does happen to show up later, we can open a new one.

On 7/16/06, Dave Chapman <dave_at_dchapman.com> wrote:
> Jonathan Gordon wrote:
> > hey,
> > i was having a quick look through the bug reports and especially the
> > old ones have had no comments for 3+ months except asking weather the
> > bug still exsists.
> > How long do we wait for an answer before closing the reports?
>
> Don't forget that Rockbox has been in feature freeze for 3.5 months (is
> it really that long?), so the normal pace of change that can invalidate
> bug reports hasn't been happening.
>
> Just because a bug report hasn't been commented on for a while doesn't
> mean the bug has been fixed - but if the bug can't be recreated and the
> original poster doesn't respond to requests for more information, then I
> agree with others who think it makes sense to close it.
>
> Dave.
>

-- 
- Zakk
midkay_at_gmail.com

Received on 2006-07-17