Autoresolving our 554 old UNCONFIRMED bugs

[Marcus Meissner]

On Sat, Oct 01, 2005 at 11:07:39AM -0700, Dan Kegel wrote:
> Marcus Meissner wrote:
> >>http://kegel.com/wine/qa/autoresolve.html
> >
> >I am not sure that I like this approach.
> >It might appear to our users that we do not care.
> 
> I bet we can word the message to avoid that appearance.
> 
> We could even have the message simply say
> 
>    Are you still interested in this bug?
> 
> rather than asking them to retest the bug.  That
> would have nearly the same effect, and sounds a lot nicer.
> I've updated the page to reflect this more friendly wording.
> 
> >The timelines are a bit strict too. ;)
> 
> The message makes it clear that the bug can be
> reopened at any time.  I think that takes away
> the strictness you're worried about.
> 
> How do you feel about it with those changes?

Actually I think a bunch of volunteers has gone over most
of the issue manually now...

This lead to more instantely closed bugs ;)

So an automated approach is no longer necessary I guess.

Ciao, Marcus