Re: Danger: older bugs are getting squashed with NEEDINFO

On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 11:32 AM, C de-Avillez <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
> All,
>
> We had a chat a few ago on #bugs, and we agree this was rather too
> inclusive: as Tristan points out, and others commented, a confirmed
> (i.e., status NEW) bug is no longer under the care of the bugsquad.
>
> We have just revised the policy to refer exclusively to:
>
>  * UNCONFIRMED bugs with *no* action in the last year
>
> We appreciate the feedback, and we would like to keep on having
> more ;-). We invite any interested party to either email us at the
> gnome-bugsquad or to drop by #bugs, voicing their concerns and
> suggestions.

Really, I dont think this is good enough for me.

As for Glade, a bug has always either been UNCONFIRMED or RESOLVED...

Let me put it this way, I have been contributing sporadically
over the last 5 years, the last time I gave the buglist a short
runthrough was in December before releasing Glade 3.6, since then
the buglist has seen alot of activity and I have religiously only
dealt with crasher bugs, it happens often enough that I dont touch
Glade at all for 6 months at a time.

I really dont have time to run after the crasher bugs that I do
run after this year, but I do it cause I wanted to promise at
least something usable that doesnt crash.

Now its like you are telling me that if I dont go through my
whole buglist myself and explicitly mark every unconfirmed
bug as new, that I will lose all the older bugs.

I also feel threatened that if I dont pay attention promptly
to bugmail that bugs will be lost on the long term.

So the bottom line is basically this: if you feel this should
be the minimum standard of attention that a maintainer must
absolutely pay to his buglist, then so be it, but I think you are
being unfair to ask this of me.

Regards,
          -Tristan