What we have learned from the Bug Day

[Daniel Letzeisen]

On 09/24/2013 03:03 PM, C de-Avillez wrote:
> Actually, one should be able to to link to a bug from answers.lp.c.
Yes, but that doesn't close the question and convert it into a bug, and 
then further conversation occurs in both the question and bug, which 
leads to confusion IMO.

> I am not 100% against it. But, in this case, I would like to be able 
> to unilaterally close the bug invalid if the minimum required data is 
> not there.
Agreed. If an advanced user goes out of the way to file a bug report 
directly not using the tools, s/he should have some technical insight 
into the issue or it's a really obvious bug (like a typo in a package 
description).

> I agree, but I would also like to point out that correlation is not 
> causation. Some bugs are more prone to go away with time: presentation 
> bugs, for example. The whole point is we cannot be *sure*. And... what 
> is new today will be old tomorrow...

I understand, but I really bugs from EOL releases that haven't been 
touched in years (I call them "ghost bugs"). I'd love it if every bug 
was tagged with an associated release(s), and once all the releases were 
EOL, the bug would automatically become Incomplete and Expire unless a 
user indicated it still affects them in a current release.