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.
