>>>>> "Gioele" == Gioele Barabucci <gio...@svario.it> 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.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
