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

["Stephen J. Smoogen" <smooge gmail com>]

On 5/26/05, Michael Schwendt <bugs michael gmx net> 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.

Actually a better resolution would be

CANTFIX_WO_INFO (resting).

or just

CANTFIX

This is a better answer in some cases to WONTFIX... but leads to even
more bugzilla choices... (Some anthropologist looking at this in 100
years will say "Bugzilla users like eskimos had 200 ways of saying
CLOSED.)


-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.
CSIRT/Linux System Administrator