Re: Mass closing of bugs ?
On Sun, Dec 03, 2006 at 11:46:37AM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Now that iceape replaces mozilla and provides mozilla packages for
> transition, the BTS now show all old mozilla bugs in the iceape reports.
> These may or may not include bugs that don't exist anymore, and
> considering how mozilla used to be maintained, it may also include bugs
> that were not even in mozilla anymore or at all.
>
> Considering that the maintainer scripts have not been inherited from
> mozilla, and that the mozilla engine is pretty different, may I just
> close all the bugs assigned to old mozilla packages, requesting a
> reopen if the bug still exists in iceape ?
I really hate when bugs are closed that way, but I would still support
you to do that if you are going to maintain the package in the long
run. It is simply too psychologically taxing to start with a huge backlog
of unprocessed bug reports. It generally do not lead to timely handling
of new bug reports [1]. So I would support if the bugs were closed with
full explanation of the situation and sincere apology for the lack of
answers.
My own experience of asking submitters to recheck bugs against newer
version is mixed (both as a maintainer and a submitter). As a maintainer
I seldom get useful answers and as I submitter I seldom provide useful
answers. One reason is that two year after the bug report, I rarely
have the old set up around to try or I cannot easily upgrade it to the
sid version.
What you can do if you are motivated, is to keep the bugs assigned to
mozilla for one month, try to process as much as you can during that time
and then close the rest.
Cheers,
--
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>
Imagine a large purple swirl here.
[1] I suppose it is more motivating to go from 1 open bug to 0 than
from 701 to 700.
Reply to: