2010/3/11 Ng Oon-Ee <ngoonee@xxxxxxxxx>: > On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 22:49 +0100, Heiko Baums wrote: >> Am Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:59:07 -0600 >> schrieb Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@xxxxxxxxx>: >> >> > Commenting on bugs after they are closed will just annoy the >> > developer. If you have an issue with the fix or something, reopening >> > is the right action. If you have information to add, then add it to >> > the wiki, as THAT is the source of documentation, not flyspray >> >> But the wiki is for documentations, not for comments on a bug report or >> closure. >> >> As long as it is possible to reopen a bug commenting on closed bugs is >> not necessary. But there are bug trackers which don't allow reopening >> but writing comments on closed bugs. I think this is a matter of taste. >> >> What's more important is, that bugs aren't closed at once without >> asking for more details and an answer of the reporter. I guess in most >> cases there's a reason why a bug is reported. >> >> Greetings, >> Heiko > > Considering the trade-offs between:- > 1. Allowing re-opening of bugs > 2. Allowing comments on closed bugs > 3. Bugs shouldn't be closed without a request for details. > > I'd think 3 is much more sensible. 1. and 2. would just annoy the > developer assigned to the bug, and in my mind the 'closing' of a bug > should be basically a 'delete thread' operation. I guess it would be > good for a simple system where if a bug cannot be reproduced its > marked/commented as 'cannot reproduce, please provide proof/details' and > placed on a 7-day (arbitrary number) wait, where no more comments would > automatically close the bug. > > Not sure if its possible with the backend though... This sounds like throwing technology at a problem that basically boils down to a communication issue. Without specific examples, this isn't going to go anywhere, really. Would someone mind linking to the bugs in question?
