Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
How about doing a "bug amnesty" as follows?
As already said by others, I too am not fond of a "bug amnesty". There
are a lot of minor issues/patches etc. that could easily be cranked
through in a Hackathon-like period. Also, there are some documentation
and "live site links" bugs entered that definitely would give bad user
feedback if we simply made them "EXPIRED" or "WONTFIX".
I've just checked: there are 306 open bugs (including status NEEDINFO),
of which there are 107 that were created/changed before 01-01-2005.
The type of bug varies from major bugs to patches to road maps etc.
I propose to focus on those first and see if we can change state on
them, i.e. close them because they are either obsolete or are fixed or
update them if they are still valid, but require a lot of work. If this
is done by the end of November (no, I don't know how much work this
means ;-) ), all open bugs will be of this year.
After that we could try to reduce the "age" with two months every month,
so in December we tackle bugs that haven't been changed since February,
in Jan 2006, we tackle bugs that haven't been changed since April and so on.
I know this means a lot of work, and takes certainly a lot more effort
than simply "expire", but it really shows the user community that we
care and actually _USE_ their contributions.
Bye, Helma
