> 1. You don't know if they are still there. Thousands of commits have been done since then. Whenever I did go through a long list of old bugs, many were not re

> 1. You don't know if they are still there. Thousands of commits have been done since then. Whenever I did go through a long list of old bugs, many were not reproduceable. It can certainly be reasonable to close unreproducable bugs. But you said that you habitually come in and close any bug older than 6 months. Those are different things. > 2. Many companies have no bug triage process and just fill every bug that is reported. So these are bugs that no one has any intention of fixing. So it's not important if they are there or not. Surely it's important to know that the bug exists even if it's unlikely to be fixed? > 3. You seem to think that only the bugs in your bugtracker are there. Not at all. What makes you think that? > The bugs in your bugtracker are a random selection with a bias to the more obvious ones of the bugs in your code. OK. And? You propose throwing out a list of problems because that list is biased and incomplete? "– My roof is leaking! – Yes, but you're focusing on that because it's easy to see! You should ignore it unless you are also sure that your electrical wiring is sound." > 4. If you don't want to fix bugs, you don't need to track them. With respect, this is absolutely nuts! Knowing of deficiencies in a program can be very, very useful!