Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Firefox bug gets fixed after 25 years

bugzilla.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 176 posts

Re: Firefox bug gets fixed after 25 years

#92

Post by johannes1234321 »

With such old bugs I often wonder whether it's not best to simply close them. Few people will browse them and many will be "accidentally" closed by reworking of different subsystems. But if they are still relevant somebody will file it, again. If not reopened it's probably not a problem anymore.

Re: Firefox bug gets fixed after 25 years

#93

Post by largehotcoffee »

johannes1234321 wrote: post #92

With such old bugs I often wonder whether it's not best to simply close them. Few people will browse them and many will be "accidentally" closed by reworking of different subsystems. But if they are still relevant somebody will file it, again. If not reopened it's probably not a problem anymore.

I see people say this all the time, it's a harmful bad practice. Don't auto close bug reports after x amount of time.

Re: Firefox bug gets fixed after 25 years

#94

Post by SECProto »

sapiogram wrote: post #85
LM358 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even worse when it's wrong, Discogs insists that October 2021 is "over three years ago"

Earlier this years, Github would routinely say "2 years ago" for comments made 11 months ago.

I've experienced (not on GitHub) things that happened 729 days ago being "one year ago", which is similarly incorrect

Re: Firefox bug gets fixed after 25 years

#95

Post by mixmastamyk »

johannes1234321 wrote: post #92

With such old bugs I often wonder whether it's not best to simply close them. Few people will browse them and many will be "accidentally" closed by reworking of different subsystems. But if they are still relevant somebody will file it, again. If not reopened it's probably not a problem anymore.

Bug Wars II: CADT Strikes Back. ;-)

Re: Firefox bug gets fixed after 25 years

#96

Post by [deleted] »

mulmen wrote: post #34
piotrke wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh my, you needed chatgpt to check that? ;) Btw, it is a kind of useful to have the date ordered in the obvious minor to major way...

Would you write the time as SS:MM:HH? DD-MM-YYYY isn’t as logical as you think. If it was actually consistent then it would be 82-20-0002. Only ISO 8601 and friends are consistently arranged. Anything else is simply a convention that makes sense to those accustomed to it.

[deleted]

Re: Firefox bug gets fixed after 25 years

#97

Post by Xenoamorphous »

tomovo wrote: post #55
Xenoamorphous wrote: post #46

Off topic but I really dislike the trend of using “human readable durations” like “a month ago”, just tell me the bloody date, I can figure out for myself. Outlook (Mac version at least) is the worst offender. For emails prior to the current day it will say for example just “yesterday” and it will only show you the time if you click on the email. I get dozens of mails per day, having just “yesterday” for 50 messages…

"Xenoamorphous 4 minutes ago", got it. Edit: 5 minutes ago.

Ha! Maybe, maybe for something happening in the past day or so it’s ok, esp. due to timezone conversion confusion.

But for anything older than that, just show me the date!

Re: Firefox bug gets fixed after 25 years

#98

Post by Izkata »

hu3 wrote: post #39
piotrke wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh my, you needed chatgpt to check that? ;) Btw, it is a kind of useful to have the date ordered in the obvious minor to major way...

I don't need AI to check this info. In the same way I don't need a car if I have a horse :) I could have spent much more time compiling the same information myself. You're free to keep using horses though.

For this in particular you don't need to spend time on it, it's already been done: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_date_formats_by_countr...

Re: Firefox bug gets fixed after 25 years

#100

Post by brcmthrowaway »

aitchnyu wrote: post #32
db48x wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even today it is hard to beat Bugzilla. In fact, some of the choices available today are so much worse than Bugzilla that I cannot even fathom how they exist. As an example, Dwarf Fortress uses Mantis BT, which is just awful. On the other hand, FogBugz is one that I have always wanted to try if I ever got the chance.

Whoa, Fogbugz was sold off to a new buyer and Glitch is the only major product in Fog Creek's hands.

They got FU money
Post reply on HN