Lawrence Mandel schrieb:
I would assert that if a bug hasn't been fixed in 10 years it probably isn't
important enough to spend time on now.
You see what kind of reactions that brings up? ;-)
I have tried something like that years ago in the SeaMonkey project, and
after a lot of discussion went to mass-move all non-enhancement bugs
from before the current SeaMonkey project was started to a RESOLVED
status (EXPIRED was available to mass-changes back then, so I used
that). This was followed by quite some stir-up even though it had been
discussed extensively on the SeaMonkey lists, and it surely did cost me
a lot of time to deal with - but the vast majority of those bugs stayed
closed. If its net worth was positive probably depends on your point of
view.
The question really is how disturbing a ton of open bugs are in our
work. If we see them as some kind of Kanban cards in our agile process
on the lowest level (which is something that feels somewhat fitting to
me), then they surely clog up the "not started" column quite a bit
unless you filter them out in some way, I understand that. If you apply
a filter in some form, they disappear in the sea of "not up for
consideration" bugs that aren't up on the board. Then the question
becomes of how easy or hard it is to find those in the sea that are
worth to go up on the board, and how much work it is worth to reduce the
overall size of that sea to make that easier. Out of my experience
described above, I'm still not sure of that myself, but maybe it gives
you one point of reference in the thought process.
KaiRo
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
