On the surface a perfectly reasonable question.
Perhaps a step back.
Fixing bugs has costs:
- Time ( that time could have been spent adding features)
- Money (those features that you are not adding are costing you money)
- People (you have to assign developers, and QA)
- Bother (it can be a physiological or organizational bother to fix that bug)
The benefits of fixing the bug are pretty straightforward.
- The bug is fixed and customers are happy.
So should bugs always be fixed?
It depends if the cost is worth the benefit.
The benefit is usually easy to tell – a bug like inability to login that keeps customers from working must be fixed.
But a bug where the font sizes of a label in a particular screen double in size; that manifests only in Windows 7 32 bit Javanese edition that is used by a single customer? Maybe not.
This is why in bug trackers there are the known statuses
- In Progress
There is also an additional status - Won’t Fix
In other words : only fix bugs where the benefit is greater than the cost.