3 ms·
The downside is that Mozilla tracks thousands of open tickets, most of which are probably obsolete. But who is going to start now with reviewing stuff from 20 y
by fuzzy2 6y ago
The downside is that Mozilla tracks thousands of open tickets, most of which are probably obsolete. But who is going to start now with reviewing stuff from 20 years ago?
As much as it pains me (I’m still tracking multiple bugs I reported) to say this, but all tickets with no activity for some reasonable time period must simply be closed. Things are _already_ out of control.
- Cthulhu_ 6y agoThat's too simplistic. What if it IS an issue, or what if it WILL be fixed, but because of priorities it's always bumped down the list? What do you then, bump it every few weeks? No, any open source project needs someone (or multiple people) triaging tickets; either keep them open and make sure they are implemented in a reasonable time, or close them as a 'wontfix'. Of course, then you'll have the issue of people opening up new tickets for the same thing, and the triagers will have to either point them to the old ticket, or the discussion about whether or not to do it has to be restarted.
- fuzzy2 6y agoI totally agree. There’s just this thing called “reality” and unless your ticket by coincidence ends up catching the eye of someone who can actually do something about it, it will be left to rot. And because nobody will bother looking at the oldest ticket known to man™, the close-bot may as well close it. Tens of thousands of untriaged reports aren’t helping anyone.
- kevincox 6y agoI think there is a place for "Priority: Would Accept Patch". AKA we don't think it is a bad idea (otherwise we would close) but at this point we don't think that "the developers" will ever get to it. However leave it open, people can mark interest (hopefully with a vote not a bump) or maybe even write a patch. It's not hurting anyone just sitting there.