Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 03:31:58PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: :> "Michael G Schwern via RT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :> :5.005 threads are due to be eliminated in 5.10. Closing this bug. :> :> This seems like an inappropriate justification for closing the bug: :> if there is a bug in (eg) 5.8.x the ticket remains valid. :> :> Closing it because there is insufficient information and the OP does :> not respond to requests for more info might be valid. But leaving :> it 'stalled' as it was before seems appropriately descriptive. : :Let's be pragmatic. Do we have any plans to fix 5.005 threads in the 5.8 :track? Is it likely that some white knight is going to come forward now, :after this bug sitting around for five years and 5.005 threads have :been torn out of bleadperl, and fix it?
It won't be fixed - there's no code, and hardly any useful information; it is not possible to discern that this represents a bug, let alone how it might be fixed. The wording of your closure message worried me because it suggested the same approach would be applied to a genuine bug report that could in principle be investigated and maybe fixed. :The 5.8.x track will remain open for a long time, I'd rather we didn't :have to keep all the 5.005 threads bugs stalled for another five years just :in case. There's already 144 stalled tickets. What problem does it cause having 144 stalled tickets? Do they somehow get in the way? I had assumed that 'stalled' meant that it would be impossible to validate and track down the reported bug without more information from the originator, and that they therefore don't need to be looked at unless more information arrives or someone wants to pursue the originator. :However, instead of "resolved" I can mark these "rejected" and ensure the :type is "5005threads" so they can be found later. Good nuff? Good nuff. On the general point, I think it is important to keep things in the bug database that are accepted as bugs but that are unlikely to be fixed. Further, in an ideal world, each bug report would be branched by perl version, so that we'd also be able to see that a bug reported for 5.6.0 was fixed in 5.8.4, unlikely to be backported to 5.6.x, and irrelevant in 5.10.x due to chainsaw. But I also ccept that we don't live in an ideal world, and that everyone is eager to see the open bug count go down, and that more metadata inevitably means more work for maintainers. Hugo
