One that cannot be reproduced right off the bat is one which is more complex than meets the eye. Heisenbugs? Still, bugs. Easy to say, of course. Now, maybe putting things as "closed" when you cannot reproduce is not okay with me.
I understand the scale of the issues list and that you do your best. And, as much I do want to help the community, I first want to help me first in delivering projects for clients. That is what will help in putting money back in the community after all. I can live with the current state of things, no issue (pun intended). Phil On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Marcus Denker <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 03 Oct 2014, at 12:46, Marcus Denker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 03 Oct 2014, at 12:21, [email protected] wrote: > > Frankly, I see fogbugz issues closed with some ignore/cannot reproduce > status, so, I am not creating any of them anymore. Why bother, except for > blocking bugs? > > Tell me: What is the difference between a bug that it fixed and one that > can not be reproduced? > > > I wonder if people have an idea of the scale of things… > > - We closed 107 issues the last 7 days > - there are 618 open issues > - There where 11268 issues reported for Pharo since we started. > > So when I look at an issue i try to reproduce it. If I can not, I close > it. Else this is not possible to do, sorry. Even if I wanted to: If we keep > all non-reproducible cases open we soon will be paralysed. (And that by > issues that to 99% are fixed). > > Marcus > >
