> In Bugzilla, the only real option we had was "Closed: WONTFIX/NOTABUG" which almost always resulted in hurt feelings on the part of the bug reporter.

> I think the gitlab tooling allows us to be more diplomatic in closing bugs that are out-of-scope or not aligned with the goals of the project at large.

Can you give more details about this? Closing is closing and Bugzilla allows you to name your statuses whatever you want, so I don't understand how GitLab would change anything.

My experience is that GitLab (and GitHub) is worse in tracking bugs compared to Bugzilla (I've triaged about 10k reports).

I also think having the cut-off at 1 year is a bit drastic. I would have gone for 5 years.

> It's not clear to me the question here, can you be more specific? Many bugs filed are not necessarily bugs in the codebase.

Right. So your goal is to separate reports about bona fide bugs in the codebase from reports that either a) are no longer bugs in the codebase or b) are issues outside the scope of the codebase. That's a laudable goal.

Filtering out years of bugs based on the lack of timely response from a submitter (or others) doesn't seem like a sound way to achieve that goal. There's no clear relationship between a lack of response and the relevant bug's existence/non-existence.

A "WONTFIX/NOTABUG" closure at least gives confidence that a bug was investigated. Do we know how many bugs were still pending investigation here, prior to being closed due to this migration?

> I do wish we treated bugs and user support separately.

Why not have a buck tracking system where only contributors have write access and a second system where users can submit their reports?