Close all old samba "3" bugzillas ?

[Simo]

Should we vote on this ?

Seem like the only one that raised objections is Björn but that doesn't
mean all others agree one way or another.

Simo.

On Wed, 2018-03-21 at 22:04 +0100, Ralph Böhme via samba-technical
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 08:07:10PM +0100, Björn JACKE via samba-technical wrote:
> > On 2018-03-21 at 10:20 -0700 Jeremy Allison via samba-technical sent off:
> > > However, bugs kept in the "zombie" state (even with fix attached)
> > > are not good for the project. No one is looking at them.
> > > 
> > > If Simo were to propose deleting the data, I would agree with
> > > Björn. But that's not what he's asking for.
> > > 
> > > Marking the bug as WONTFIX/EOL keeps the data, and allows the
> > > bug to be ressurected if anyone looks at it, or re-raises the
> > > issue.
> > 
> > if a bug is closed it will not be found in any search again...
> 
> iirc it's just a matter of going to advanced search and selecting all states, so
> this is a non-issue for anyone who cares about firing a deep search.
> 
> Personally I'm always in favour of wiping the slate clean, so +1 from me on
> closing instead of bugrotting.
> 
> > will not pop up ever again unless you search in ALL bugs of all states - nobody
> > will ever do a search in all bugs of all states because it is like searching
> > for a grain of sand on a beach.
> > 
> > > IMHO marking WONTFIX/EOL is acknowleging the reality of the
> > > situation, in that no one is going to look at pre-4.0.x
> > > bugs unless there is end-user activity around the issue.
> > 
> > some people, including me also look at pre 4.0 bugs or find actually old open
> > bugs when they search for a real life problem of existing setups.
> 
> What hinders you from doing the exact same search just doing it slightly
> different to get the same result?
> 
> My preference would be that by *default* searches do not return bugroten
> bugs. And those that really care should know how to tweak the searches, but for
> the majority of users I guess some sort of housekeeping would be good.
> 
> -slow
>