Re: Mass closing of bugs ?
Mikhail Gusarov <dottedmag@dottedmag.net> writes:
> You (mh@glandium.org) wrote:
> MH> Considering that the maintainer scripts have not been inherited
> MH> from mozilla, and that the mozilla engine is pretty different,
> MH> may I just close all the bugs assigned to old mozilla packages,
> MH> requesting a reopen if the bug still exists in iceape ?
> Looks like CADT: http://www.jwz.org/doc/cadt.html
Yeah, it is, but, well, there's a good reason why people do that. jwz is
mostly complaining about the software being repeatedly rewritten and only
secondarily about the resulting mass-closing of bug reports. Once the
software is rewritten, it really is quite hard to revalidate a lot of
bugs; the real solution is to slowly evolve software rather than rewrite
it completely.
Anyway, the problem we have in Debian is that the rewrite happened
upstream of us and wasn't our choice but we now have to deal with our
resulting backlog of bugs. My guess is that leaving the bugs open is
actually going to be of less service to the users than a mass-close after
prompting them to recheck the bugs, since the chances of anyone going
through them is rather slim.
However, one way to prevent a simple mass-close of the bugs would be to
volunteer to triage them all! If someone feels strongly that they deserve
attention and wants to go through and recheck them, I bet the Iceweasel
maintainers wouldn't complain. :)
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: