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

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

Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Thu, 26 May 2005 11:08:33 -0400, 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 ...
>
>
> NEEDINFO -> no reply -> WONTFIX : that really is the most true
> resolution. Without feedback, the bug won't be fixed because it won't be
> examined further. Just explain that when closing the ticket. Keep in mind
> that the reporter can reopen the ticket as soon as new feedback is
> provided.

I disagree.  There are different ways to say the same thing, and
while "WONTFIX" is very much true, it is NOT the best way of saying
it.  Or should I say instead - There are better ways of saying
"WONTFIX" that are more positive and friendly.

One could argue GO_TO_HELL is a "true" resolution for some bugs,
but is it "friendly"?  Is it "proactive"?  Does it give the
reporter a warm feeling in their stomach?

No.