How about a radical notion - we only fix the bugs that we got a report on in the last 30 days, or that we've worked on in the past 30 days, and still seem like they are worth the trouble. If fixing the bug is really about adding a new feature, transfer it to a different list.
The thing about bugs is that they get reliably re-reported over time anyway, causing you to spend even more time noting the duplicates. And for old bugs, you need to spend even more time reconfirming if they are still relevant.
Everybody hates this. Why not exploit the recurrent nature of bug reports, and assume the users will ask us about it again if it matters?
I can't think of an instance where we were really glad that we saved some minor bug reports from months and months ago.
> The thing about bugs is that they get reliably re-reported over time anyway
This is the key sentence.
If a bug matters, it will be reported more than once. In fact the more it is reported, the more it matters.
If you need to do something, and forget, then there will be consequences. Those consequences will be a strong reminder that in the future your brain should be a lot more scared of this outcome. And if there are no consequences, did you really need to do that thing? Because why?
Similarly, if an idea you had is good and you didn't write it down, don't worry, it will come back. Good ideas have a nasty habit of bubbling up in your brain and not leaving you alone. Have some confidence in your mind's ability to consistently dredge up the good stuff on its own. You don't need systems and methodologies and software to do so.
I think this could describe most of the articles on codinghorror.com these days. Or to put it more politely (from a quote by Einstein): "The horizon of many people is a circle with a radius of zero. They call
this their point of view." What doesn't work for someone may work for others.
I'm not sure I agree. I am consumed with interest in a particular project right now, but there are so many avenues to explore, it's very easy for me to get interested in what font the logo should be or a bunch of other stuff that just doesn't matter. My brain's natural impulses are not always helpful.
If you need to do something, and forget, then there will be consequences.
Like feeding your pets? Or your children? Yeah, I'm sure the court will see it that way.
Similarly, if an idea you had is good and you didn't write it down, don't worry, it will come back. Good ideas have a nasty habit of bubbling up in your brain and not leaving you alone.
What evidence do you have for this? How many scientific breakthroughs have been due to happy accidents, or someone noticing a tiny thread and keeping track of it? How many times do you hear about some scientific discovery that took decades because people kept forgetting to note "insignificant" details?
One last thing: just because lists don't work for you doesn't mean they don't have utility for others.
The thing about bugs is that they get reliably re-reported over time anyway, causing you to spend even more time noting the duplicates. And for old bugs, you need to spend even more time reconfirming if they are still relevant.
Everybody hates this. Why not exploit the recurrent nature of bug reports, and assume the users will ask us about it again if it matters?
I can't think of an instance where we were really glad that we saved some minor bug reports from months and months ago.