Really?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Really?

Nathanael Nerode-5
Scott James Remnant wrote:
>I've already done this; all the open bugs are known bugs.
Really?  This seems extremely unlikely given the state of the bug reports.
Consider 52087.

Well then, a lot of tag changes are necessary.

96813: tagged unreproducible
198699: tagged unreproducible
172752: tagged unreproducible
192273: tagged unreproducible moreinfo
23871: tagged "moreinfo" since 2002 due to unreproducibility
20471: tagged "patch"
134301: tagged "moreinfo" since 2002 because unreproducible, reported against
woody

Just for starters.

I assume you want me to remove the "moreinfo", "unreproducible", and "patch"
tags from those bugs which have had them more than a year?  (Because clearly
the patch isn't considered acceptable, the more info clearly isn't going to
arrive, and the bug isn't unreproducible if it's a known bug).

I find the claim that all the open bugs really are known to exist in the
current version rather hard to believe, but if it's true then the only
logical conclusion is that they're grossly mistagged.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Really?

Scott James Remnant
On Fri, 2006-01-06 at 05:10 -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:

> Scott James Remnant wrote:
> >I've already done this; all the open bugs are known bugs.
> Really?  This seems extremely unlikely given the state of the bug reports.
> Consider 52087.
>
> Well then, a lot of tag changes are necessary.
>
> 96813: tagged unreproducible
> 198699: tagged unreproducible
> 172752: tagged unreproducible
> 192273: tagged unreproducible moreinfo
> 23871: tagged "moreinfo" since 2002 due to unreproducibility
> 20471: tagged "patch"
> 134301: tagged "moreinfo" since 2002 because unreproducible, reported against
> woody
>
> Just for starters.
>
> I assume you want me to remove the "moreinfo", "unreproducible", and "patch"
> tags from those bugs which have had them more than a year?  (Because clearly
> the patch isn't considered acceptable, the more info clearly isn't going to
> arrive, and the bug isn't unreproducible if it's a known bug).
>
No, if I'd wanted those removed I would have done it myself.  I don't
consider old bugs to be worthy of discard, and frankly, it's my bug
list.

Scott
--
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen?  Are you going round the twist?

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment