Is the bug database a circular file or is it used?
I would like some confirmation on this from an official source.
The OpenGL bug database appears, from all visual evidence, to be nothing more than /dev/null. Every bug filed here is left in the "new" state. Bugs are almost never fixed or responded to.
The only exception to this seems to be bugs for the man-pages, which Graham Sellers seems to be fairly responsive to. Though there are plenty of bugs that haven't been addressed there too, at least Graham seems to be at least someone present in the DB. That is, if you file a legitimate bug, there is a reasonable chance that it will be seen and corrected, and the bug closed as fixed.
In order for a bug database to be useful, for both the owners of it and its users, the database needs to be maintained. The owners need to respond to new bugs, even if that response is just to close them outright without comment. At least it shows that the bug was seen and responded to. If bugs are fixed, the the corresponding bug reports need to be closed. If there is an intent to fix a particular bug, then the bug report needs to be updated with that information. This allows users to trust the bug DB as a useful mechanism for getting things done.
So I just want to know: is time spent filing bugs there wasted? Or are these going to actually be seen by anyone with the power, time, and inclination to do something about them? If it's the former, can you suggest some alternate means of contacting the ARB that is more likely to result in action? And if it is the latter, then I would suggest investing 30 minutes a week into cleaning up the bug DB, so that it at least looks like it's an active place that the ARB uses.