On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 10:12:45 -0800, Marshall Clow wrote
Hi Marshall -
Thx for keeping this up. I have a question, though. I'm wondering if Mike Glassford or Stephen Cleary (2 of the top 3) are really going to ever address their bugs in the near future? My guess is no. Perhaps we should consider closing some of these out as 'will not be fixed -- no active maintainer'?
Jeff - I think that closing these is the wrong thing to do.
Rather, we should find someone who is interested in maintaining those libraries, or possibly, remove them from boost - since they contain bugs and are no longer maintained. [ My 2c, obviously. ]
No disagreement, finding new maintainers that can help would be ideal -- but it's a pretty infrequent event. Part of my point (perhaps not obvious) is that it's probably unfair for the originator to ever expect that these will be fixed -- so maybe it's better to just tell them that?
Taking it from another angle, by my count we have the following historical breakdown:
Opened in 2002 - 9 Opened in 2003 - 3 Opened in 2004 - 12 Opened in 2005 - 37
Seems to me that the 24 issues that are now over a year old really should be evaluated for validaty or closed as unlikely to ever be fixed. Thoughts?
I agree that they should be evaluated for validity. I'll bet that a lot of them have been fixed; since I started nagging people, many bugs have been closed with "oh yeah - that was fixed in 1.32" type comments. If they're still valid bugs, and are on supported platforms, then they should be remain open until they are fixed.
I don't know if we can invent new states, but if we could it would be nice to move some of these to open-no-maintainer. The other question is -- does the originator care, at this point, about a 3 year old unfixed bug? If they haven't gotten a fix by no it seems likely that they worked around it or moved on. Just thinking out loud here on how to improve the process... Jeff