ticket status report

[Sean Egan]

On 9/12/07, Luke Schierer <lschiere at pidgin.im> wrote:
> I would ask everyone to try to devote at least a few hours in the days
> following our 2.2.0 release to the 100 oldest tickets.  Lets close those
> that are unfixable for lack of information, and the feature requests
> that time is proving we won't get around to implementing short of a
> patch.  If we can close a signficant number of these, I feel confident
> that we will be rolling over far fewer tickets each release.

I'd be glad to do this. Do you mean the oldest 100 ticket in the 2.2.1
milestone? Or the oldest 100 total.

> You will have noticed that I have stopped attempting to to assign
> tickets to mile stones.  It simply isn't worth it, when most of the
> tickets attached to our previous mile stones have been passed over in
> favor of new work and newer bugs.  What can I do to make it easier to
> close *old* tickets?

I think the problem is that age isn't a good measure of importance.
Most of the older bugs are minor impact and non-trivial to fix (yes
still valid); I'd much rather fix 100 more important bugs than 100
older ones.

I feel bad closing a perfectly valid bug as "wontfix," but we can
definitely make inroads with just "invalid" and "worksforme"

-s.