On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 07:40:59PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 05:55:28PM -0400, Mike A. Harris wrote: > > However, "CANFIX" implies that you (or someone) "can" actually > > fix the issue, which in reality may not be true. As such, I would > > refrain from using CANFIX. Proactivity focuses on stating what > > you will do, so I would use something like: > > WILL_REVIEW_ONCE_REQUESTED_INFO_IS_SUPPLIED > > I think this is a great idea provided we can somehow condense it down to, > like, 12 letters :) and, crucially, if someone _does_ provide info, they get > some kind of reaction. (Which I understand is hard.) If we want to leave the bugs "awaiting more info" and avoid upsetting anyone by providing a "negative" resolution we can just leave them open forever in NEEDINFO, that's no big deal. But... news flash... *we are not going to fix FC2 bugs any more*. That is the policy of this project -- no more FC2 updates, ergo no more FC2 bugs fixed. If the bugs also exist in later releases the reporters can refile appropriate, your text already clearly explains that. So I think it's better to just be honest and WONTFIX them. Yes, it's negative, yes, it might upset a few people, no, it's not a big deal, it's just a bug tracking system. joe
