Maybe the real answer is that there should be bug state for bugs that are
closed without having been fixed:
CLOSED NOTFIXED.
Not judgmental, just factual. And for comments, check the bug.
/me wonders if bugzilla can be tweaked not to allow someone to close a bug
NOTFIXED without adding a comment first...
--g
_____________________ ____________________________________________
Greg DeKoenigsberg ] [ the future masters of technology will have
Community Relations ] [ to be lighthearted and intelligent. the
Red Hat ] [ machine easily masters the grim and the
] [ dumb. --mcluhan
Red Hat Summit ] [
New Orleans ] [ Learn. Network. Experience Open Source.
June 1/2/3 2005 ] [ (And Make Your Boss Pay For It.)
[ http://www.redhat.com/promo/summit/
On Sun, 29 May 2005, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Sat, 28 May 2005 19:06:03 -1000, Warren Togami wrote:
>
> > Stephen J. Smoogen wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.)
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I think it should have been CANTFIX instead of WONTFIX from the
> > beginning. Are there really cases where CANTFIX doesn't fit a situation
> > where you mean WONTFIX?
>
> In cases like this, a ticket should be just "CLOSED" without a second
> resolution or with resolution "SEECOMMENT". The rationale for closing the
> bug can be added as a comment. The primary problem seems to be that the
> "Resolution" setting is _the_ source of misunderstandings. WONTFIX upsets
> users. CANTFIX makes the developers look bad.
>
> --
> Fedora-maintainers mailing list
> Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
>
