One of my mein concerns is that we aren't keeping up with bug reports so we may close a bug at eol without anyone from QA or any developer ever looking at it. To me this seems unfair to the reporter. <div class="gmail_quote">On Jun 29, 2012 4:00 PM, "Caolán McNamara" <<a href="mailto:caolanm@redhat.com">caolanm@redhat.com</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> On Fri, 2012-06-29 at 15:36 -0700, Joel Madero wrote: > I am really hesitant to support just having so many bugs floating > around like this. I think that marking as RESOLVED -> WONTFIX enables > devs to look at these if they are ever inclined to do so but makes it > clear to the users that we won't be doing this. Yup, I agree totally. Its not helpful to have loads of no-hoper bugs floating around. They should be closed with resolved->wontfix. My suggestion is only around the comment and criteria to use when closing them. e.g. here's our fedora-16 one <a href="http://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=BugZappers/HouseKeeping/Fedora16#Comment_Text_2" target="_blank">http://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=BugZappers/HouseKeeping/Fedora16#Comment_Text_2</a> So taking the fedora comment and adjusting it for us, it would look like... " LibreOffice ''(major-version}'' changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on ''(date here)''. LibreOffice ''(major-version}'' is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of LibreOffice please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed. " so for us that would mean anything reported against 3.3.X and 3.4.X is up for mass-closing with the above. C. </blockquote></div>