On Fri, 2006-01-06 at 05:10 -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Scott James Remnant wrote: > >I've already done this; all the open bugs are known bugs. > Really? This seems extremely unlikely given the state of the bug reports. > Consider 52087. > > Well then, a lot of tag changes are necessary. > > 96813: tagged unreproducible > 198699: tagged unreproducible > 172752: tagged unreproducible > 192273: tagged unreproducible moreinfo > 23871: tagged "moreinfo" since 2002 due to unreproducibility > 20471: tagged "patch" > 134301: tagged "moreinfo" since 2002 because unreproducible, reported against > woody > > Just for starters. > > I assume you want me to remove the "moreinfo", "unreproducible", and "patch" > tags from those bugs which have had them more than a year? (Because clearly > the patch isn't considered acceptable, the more info clearly isn't going to > arrive, and the bug isn't unreproducible if it's a known bug). > No, if I'd wanted those removed I would have done it myself. I don't consider old bugs to be worthy of discard, and frankly, it's my bug list. Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part