On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Scott Parkerson <scott.parker...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Alexandre Franke > <alexandre.fra...@gmail.com> wrote: >> [..] bugs that are filed by end users are rotting somewhere in our >> bugtracker and these are the ones that we should check. Going >> sequentially from older bug reported (lowest number) will ensure that >> obsolete reports get closed or processed as they should be. > > Here, here. I agree. To me, the lowest hanging fruit is to go back to > the oldest stuff. Much of it is (probably) not even applicable anymore > (e.g. who cares if epiphany 0.1 crashes when epiphany has been rev'd a > bunch of times?). Furthermore, prioritizing has to be pragmatic. It's > not a blocker that your obscure package that's not even in the groups > is busted, but it's a critical issue if some part of GNOME that > everyone hits is busted. > > --sgp
I fully agree that the oldest is often the easiest. Just be careful -- if a bug has an easy repro case, it pays to actually try to reproduce it before you close it, just in case. I've seen situations in other bug tracking systems where an issue get auto-closed because it was originally filed against an old product version, and the reporter gets mad because the problem very obviously still exists in the latest version. --Andy _______________________________________________ Foresight-devel mailing list Foresight-devel@lists.rpath.org http://lists.rpath.org/mailman/listinfo/foresight-devel
