[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

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



On Thu, 26 May 2005 13:41:35 -0400, Mike A. Harris 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.

Well, bugzilla.fedora.us has RESOLVED/REMIND -- if the plan is to add new
resolutions or rename existing ones, I'm all for doing that. I only
thought that a WONTFIX cannot look negative if the added comment gives
the rationale.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]