The impending end of FC2 NEEDINFO bugs...

[Warren Togami]

Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 02:24:30PM -1000, Warren Togami wrote:
> 
>>I don't think it should be DEFERRED but rather CURRENTRELEASE.  DEFERRED 
>>implies that the bug intends to be revisited later, which is not the 
>>case.  They were given a chance to change the bug from FC2 to a newer 
>>release and NEEDINFO status.  If they haven't responded by now just 
>>assume it is fixed, and tell them about changing the Version and 
>>reopening if not.
> 
> 
> Many of these *aren't* fixed in the current release, though. They're feature
> requests that were rejected or ignored, non-reproducable one-time-glitches,
> various misunderstandings of the way things work, and yep, actual bugs that
> got dropped on the floor and aren't going to get addressed in reality.
> 
> I think DEFERRED is the best option (given the description in bugzilla)
> given the mix of bugs -- many of them *are* actually gonna be real issues.
> 
> The other alternative that makes sense is WONTFIX.

WONTFIX is more truthful then.  DEFERRED is a really bad and confusing 
state IMHO.  Could you post a draft of the accompanying closing message 
here before doing so?

Warren Togami
wtogami at redhat.com