[marcoow]

Not maintaining a backlog doesn't necessarily mean you cannot collect ideas etc. anywhere. I think the two main points are:

* putting effort into preparing proper tickets for all these ideas is likely wasted time as 90% of the ideas will never be taken on * keeping all the ideas together with the issues that are actually important creates noise and makes it harder to identify the actually important stuff; also having a backlog with thousands of open tickets puts loads of emotional pressure on teams since they are always feeling like they lack behind while in reality most of those thousands of tickets are irrelevant anyway.

Also I'm not sure what the point of being able to say

> "see, it still hardly ever happens, but here's another one".

would be really (except for being right about the existence of something) – if the decision is not to fix the bug it's irrelevant still.

[maaarghk]

https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/08/09/the-joel-test-12-s...

[commandlinefan]

Reminds me of a recent Dilbert comic/quote: "Our boss can't judge the quality of our work, but he knows when it's late".

[marcoow]

Sure, you should have bugs documented somewhere but I'm not sure a bug that hasn't been fixed for x months needs to be there since it's a bug the team obviously decided not to care about.

[watwut]

I personally fixed bugs that have been opened for longer then that, so nope, they can get fixed. Plus, it prevents people from opening them again and again and again and again as they all notice the same thing.

[cpeterso]

I've fixed a couple Firefox bugs that were filed in Bugzilla 10-15 years ago. :)

At least one fix, however, upset some people who come to like the "incorrect" behavior over those 10-15 years. (In one case, I changed the filename of saved web pages from "index.html" to HTML <title> .html to match Chrome and IE behavior.)

This xkcd comic is relevant: https://xkcd.com/1172/