I think you should go back and review all that you did. Lots of people set tons of "affects version": 1.0, 2.0, 3.3, 3.4, 4.4, .. when reporting bugs.
You cannot infer a thing, just because an old version is set. On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 5:48 AM, Erick Erickson <[email protected]> wrote: > Hmmm. I did switch my order by clause to affected version part way through, > so not all of the ones I closed would be version 1/2. Does it make sense to > put _some_ of them back for version XXX? > > > On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 8:40 AM, Erick Erickson <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> s/"do anything"/"close them"/ >> >> >> On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Erick Erickson <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> For Lucene 1.x? Who's going to do anything except ignore them forever? >>> Anything with patches is so out of date that I'd expect it to be totally >>> irrelevant. >>> >>> I can re-open them but it seems unnecessary to leave them hanging around, >>> it offends my sense of neatness. Hmmm, maybe that's insufficient reason for >>> me to do anything... >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Robert Muir <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Erick, why did you mark a ton of LUCENE issues "won't fix"? >>>> >>>> Just because they've been open for a while? >>>> >>>> Can you please put these back? Closing bugs like >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-993, just because nobody >>>> has fixed them yet, i dont think that helps anything. >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> >>> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
