4 ms·

There is no valid reason for "won't fix" to be a bug status, even if you aren't going to fix the bug. There's a status for that: "open".

• codetrotter 3y ago
  Open is for tickets that are intended to be fixed. Having nine gazillion open tickets is helpful for no one. Devs will have to wade through open tickets that are not meant to be worked on time over again. Tickets that should be worked on will be lost in the sea of irrelevant tickets. People affected by the issue will see the open ticket and think it means that it’s going to be fixed.
  • juped 3y ago
    Yes, we've all had or heard horror stories of managers like you who flip out over open and closed ticket metrics. That doesn't make it good practice.
• HankB99 3y ago
  That ("open") seems reasonable for a bug in the current release or a previous release that is still in wide use. Is there ever a situation where a bug exists so far back in the history of the project that it doesn't make sense to fix? I'm asking this as an honest question and not a challenge. I can expect that some users still use what I'd consider to be legacy S/W but I wonder how far that goes back. If the developer(s) designate a version as EOL does it make sense to keep the bug open? And OTOH, it conveys information if the developer marks a bug as "won't fix" rather than leaving the expectation that it might be addressed, someday.
  • juped 3y ago
    If the bug only exists in old versions that sounds like a great case for marking it "fixed"! (Or possibly a cousin like "moot because this subsystem was deleted".)