[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: An alarming trend (no it's not flaimbait.) (fwd)

On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 06:39:34PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Wichert Akkerman <wichert@wiggy.net> writes:
> > > 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?
> 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.

It's more a matter of triage, IMO: ie, "if the more important bugs
haven't gotten any attention for some time", then you can assume the
package isn't being maintained well.

If there are just lots of less important bugs that aren't getting attention,
then we're either short on manpower, or not using the manpower we have as
well as we might.


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

The daffodils are coming. Are you?
      linux.conf.au, February 2002, Brisbane, Australia
                                --- http://www.linux.org.au/conf

Reply to: