On Wed, 2005-06-15 at 08:03 -0600, Stephen J. Smoogen wrote: > On 6/9/05, Toshio Kuratomi <toshio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > A NEEDINFO close state is what we want. That leaves the bug reporter > > with the feeling that we care about the bug but are unable to do > > anything more about it without more information. If they care about the > > bug they can keep the dialog alive by providing the requested > > information. To let the reporter know that we won't be addressing the > > bug in the bug-targetted version of FC we can specify that we need to > > know if it still occurs on the present release. > > Having gone and stuck a lot of NEEDINFO's into bugs without getting > any feedback on them.. it is a two way street. I think that the system > should be set up as NEEDINFO (auto-close within 60 days) with a polite > email saying that if the questions can't be answered within 60 days > this ticket will be closed as FORECLOSED or some such thing. Bugzilla > is a two way street with the reporter needing to answer the questions > that the reviewer needs. On the other hand... having had lots of bugs > that have never been changed from NEW to ASSIGNED or some such... the > bugzilla needs to be maintained on its side also. > I'm not saying to leave bugs open-NEEDINFO. But we need a close state that expresses the same thing. (The rest of my mail was why WONTFIX does not satisfy that criteria). -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
