Re: An alarming trend (no it's not flaimbait.) (fwd)
Wichert Akkerman <wichert@wiggy.net> writes:
> Previously Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > So, picking one at random, why is bug 9085 still open?
>
> Because since we started working on it again we've had lots
> more pressing things to look into that a bug like #9085?
So I picked that bug totally at random; and my intention is not to
poke at the hard-working dpkg maintainers.
Perhaps the metric is not "are there bugs that have gone unattended
for four years", but "are there no bugs that have gotten any attention
for years". The latter test might well be better.
Still, if there are bugs that have gone unattended for four years,
then *something* is broken, but not necessarily something that the
dpkg maintainers can fix. Perhaps the hard-working (overworked) QA
team can also have a priority list of very-old bugs. Or perhaps there
need to be more people working on such packages. I don't know.
What I see is just a symptom; I have no certain diagnosis.
Reply to: