Re: 4K Bugs

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org>
> Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2015 17:41:35 +0100
> Cc: jwiegley@gmail.com,
> 	Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler@online.de>,
> 	emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > I think the balance still tips towards retaining the information.  We
> > can always treat old bugs as "logically deleted", if it bothers
> > someone.
> 
> Well, the bug reports are still there, even if they're closed.  :-)  It's
> just part of the ranking, in a way, and says something about how hard we
> think (as maintainers) that we (as maintainers) should be looking at the
> bug reports.

"moreinfo" is a euphemism for "not reproducible", so it's not
different.  I imagine people who are annoyed by these bugs can filter
those "moreinfo" out, right?

> >From "critical" ("LOOK AT THIS!!!") via "wishlist" ("if you have the
> time...") to "closed" ("I think it's rather likely that this isn't
> interesting").
> 
> By putting bug reports in the last category more aggressively, one hopes
> to stimulate people to focus on the rest of the reports...
> 
> I don't know how well this works for projects that auto-close bug
> reports.  Anybody have experience with that?

Closing bug reports tends to annoy their reporters.  More importantly,
they disappear from all kinds of listings, and you need to work hard
just to see them, even if you want to.  Debbugs also has a nasty habit
of refusing to merge bugs that have different status (thus requiring
you to send 2 separate commands, after the original one bounces).

So on balance I'd rather leave them open and in "moreinfo" category.

Thanks.