>>>>> "Gioele" == Gioele Barabucci <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes: Gioele> For example I have opened bugs years ago against packages Gioele> that I do not use anymore. These reports are still valid and Gioele> sometime others comment on them, but I would no longer be Gioele> able to, for example, respond to `moreinfo` requests. At the Gioele> same time these bugs clutter the bugs.d.o page associated to Gioele> my email address. Gioele> It would be nice to have a separate email address to which Gioele> these bugs could be reassigned (maybe after a minimum amount Gioele> of time?). Honestly, if there is not currently a submitter behind a bug---someone who cares about it and is willing to look into requests for more information or to help confirm a fix---I'm not particularly interested in working on such a bug. To me, that's often a sign the bug should be closed until someone comes along who cares about the issue enough to interact with it. There are exceptions. So I'd be fine with a nosubmitter command or similar, but also with the understanding that it's entirely reasonable for maintainers to close nosubmitter bugs as wontfix-until-some-specific-person-cares. Socially and culturally I do want to emphasize the idea that if you aren't willing (any more) to put energy behind your problem report, it's entirely fine if no one is going to put energy behind fixing it. Having a bunch of problem reports that no one is interested in cluttering up package pages has a cost. Just for the same reasons you don't want these reports cluttering up your bugs from page, I perhaps don't want them cluttering up my bugs on my package pages if you no longer care. Again, that's not always true, and it will be dependent on the individual maintainer and the bug.
Description: PGP signature