Close all old samba "3" bugzillas ?

Simo simo at
Wed Mar 21 12:41:25 UTC 2018

On Wed, 2018-03-21 at 12:44 +0100, Björn JACKE wrote:
> On 2018-03-20 at 10:01 -0400 Simo via samba-technical sent off:
> > I was looking in bugzilla and we have bugs open since 2005 that
> > probably do not apply anymore?
> > 
> > I was thinking we should just go ahead and close all samba 3.x bugs and
> > let people re-file if any is still interesting.
> > 
> > Thoughts ?
> -1
> We discussed exactly this topic a while ago on the team list and came to the
> conclusion that we don't want this, see the "Spring 2014 Bugzilla Cleanup"
> thread. We have many old bugs that are still valid.

They may still be valid but they are clogging bugzilla needlessly and
if nobody is asking anything about those it means they are bugs nobody
cares for.

> The age of a Samba version is not a reason for closing a bug for us.

I think it is, EOLed versions will not see bugfixing anyway.

> Also the initial reporters often will
> not reopen bugs closed for that reason, some got mad after getting no
> reaction for years and then a "EOL" message only. Some reporters will not even
> use Samba anymore or have invalid mail addresses in Bugzilla these days. I know
> that almost all distributions do such EOL bug database cleanups in their bug
> trackers but we decided that this is not what we want.

Who is we ?
I only know that bugzilla is almost useless to find relevant bugs to
tackle. If bugs are not going to be fixed the *reasonable* thing to do
is to warn the person that opened them (and everyone else) that we are
not going to tackle them by closing WONTFIX/EOL and let people that
care about a specific bug to reopen it if they care, or just let it go
if they stopped caring.

Keeping dead bugs around serves who exactly ?


More information about the samba-technical mailing list