New comment

Name:
Email:
Homepage:
Location:
JavaScript support is required for this form to work.
Calculate:	52 minus 9 equals
Subject:
Entry text: [quote="IGR"][quote="Gervase Markham"]Given that you have a limited amount of QA and triage resource, when will these bugs ever be a good use of someone's time? And if they will never be a good use of someone's time, why not keep things honest and clear, and resolve them EXPIRED?[/quote] This strikes me as a good question. Is there any functional difference between EXPIRED and UNCONFIRMED in Bugzilla? Is EXPIRED already used to signify something else for Mozilla and/or SeaMonkey? If the answer to both these questions is "no" then it seems that EXPIRED would be the obvious choice if a bug could be just as easily returned from this state as it could from UNCONFIRMED. I do agree that it is overly presumptuous to assume that just because a bug has no new comments it is no longer present. Good netiquette is not to post unless you have something new to add (otherwise you seem to be contributing little more than an AOL-style "Me too!") Also keep in mind that most people are only looking at SeaMonkey 1 which has essentially been on life support since January 2007. A lack of attention to non-security-related bugs from developers might breed a certain amount of neglect from bug reporters as well. A more accurate indicator of whether or not a bug still exists might be new subscriptions to it. People don't subscribe to bugs they aren't experiencing. If there is any way to take this into account you could not only find obsolete bugs easier, you could also get a good idea of where user priority is in general for all bugs by plotting out number of subscriptions over time. I'm just a random user, however.[/quote]
I accept and follow the policy of Home of KaiRo.

This entry supports emoji, bbCode, and some HTML codes.