Michael Schwendt 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.
In my experience, that line of thought is false. Overall, the
mass populace is reactive in nature. By using negative/reactive
language, it just breeds more of the same in response.
If you use a positive/proactive word instead, then the mood is
set "positive" from the outset, and an additional explanation
can clarify it further if desired/deemed necessary.
Using an all-caps negative word, and trying to explain "why"
with some rationale, the person has already had the mood set
from the "WONTFIX", and you then must struggle to come up with
some overly long explanation with which to hope they aren't
offended. It's a losing ballgame no matter how you slice it,
as long as negative/reactive terminology is used.
