>>>>> Lars Ingebrigtsen writes: > Andrew Hyatt writes: >> That sounds like a good idea for bugs of reasonable recentness. I'm going >> through old bugs that are years old now. To me, it feels a bit awkward to >> suddenly ask people to confirm anything after years have passed - just >> closing seems like a more reasonable approach to me. But I'll follow your >> advice for bugs in the last year. If you feel strongly that time elapsed >> shouldn't matter, though, I'm happy to do it your way all the time. > Yeah, if they're really old and aren't reproducing, closing them may be the > right thing to do. Andrew, I think your strategy is good, but can we turn that clock back to two years? Emacs doesn't move all that rapidly. If you can't reproduce something From 2013 or earlier, close it as cannot reproduce with a CC to the original reporter. Otherwise, ping the submitter with a CC to the bug address saying it can't be reproduced, but leave it open. -- John Wiegley GPG fingerprint = 4710 CF98 AF9B 327B B80F http://newartisans.com 60E1 46C4 BD1A 7AC1 4BA2