Re: On Bugs
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > One thing this means is that a lot of important bugs that aren't policy
> > violations will get downgraded back to normal. This doesn't mean they
> > should be ignored, or that there's no need for -qa folk to focus on them,
> > or whatever else it seems to mean at the moment. We've got almost 11,000
> > open, unique, non-wishlist bugs at the moment. That's a lot. Probably
> > unacceptably many .
> > So what would be nice is seeing lots of those fixed. Maybe we should have
> > some bugsquash months instead of just bugsquash weekends. At the very least
> > anyone with some spare time on their hands might like to help with merging
> > duplicate reports and sending in patches to existing easily fixed bugs.
> > A release goal of 8000 open bugs might be an interesting one to aim for.
> > Thoughts?
> Can I close the automatically generated bug reports of Goswin Brederlow
> (these "automatic build fails for potato" bugs he sent some weeks
> ago)? This will close >200 bug reports. Does anyone disagree with closing
Have you checked that they are all actually fixed in woody?
Submitting a lot of bugs without asking first is not ok, but this does not
mean there may not be legitimate bugs among them.