Re: The impending end of FC2 NEEDINFO bugs...

["Mike A. Harris" <mharris www linux org uk>]

Tom Lane wrote:
> "Mike A. Harris" <mharris www linux org uk> writes:
>
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > > Is there a reason not to leave such bugs in NEEDINFO state forever?
>
>
> > Yes.  Then there are 100000 bugs open forever, that will never
> > be addressed.
>
>
> Fair enough.  What about adding a resolution category "closed for lack
> of information", which we could use if something stays in NEEDINFO
> too long?  Or I suppose we could use WORKSFORME ...

Still sounds like a negative response to me.  Any negative statements
should be inverted and made positive.

CLOSED->REQUIRES_MORE_INFORMATION

Semantically similar to "NEEDINFO", but this one is essentially
"CLOSED->NEEDINFO" rather than OPEN_STILL->NEEDINFO, so different.

Another one could be: CLOSED->REQUIRES_RESPONSE

And another useful one would be:  CLOSED->EXTERNAL_ISSUE

(for things that might indeed be bugs, but are not OUR bug.
 Various bugzillas have a NOTOURBUG resolution for this,
 but that is negative/reactive, whereas EXTERNAL_ISSUE is
 pointing out what the problem is, rather than what it isn't.)