On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 12:47 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Carl Gaudreault > <carl.gaudreault@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531464#c29 > > I appreciate the effort to be more explicit in your reasoning by > adding an additional comment in response to this out-of-ticket > dicussion. > > That being said. I really really think that its only appropriate for > someone who has talked specifically to the maintainers of a package to > make that sort of wontfix closure judgement and to do the closure. I > do not think its best practise for others to attempt to act as good > Samaritans to WONTFIX/CANTFIX closures of this nature. > > > I do not understand the reasoning for closing bugs just to avoid ABRT > adding CC's. Why are additional CC's a bad thing for this bug? One of > those additional CC's might actually be able to pin down the fix! Yes > its a widespread problem, but because its a widespread problem doesn't > mean you just shutdown the bug. I don't see how its appropriate for > anyone both one of the listed maintainers to decide that closing a bug > WONTFIX because there is _TOO MUCH_ ABRT activity. I just don't get > the rationale. Did you speak with Brian in a private conversation or > another maintainer about this at some point? Carl, I'm not sure if you've been doing this wearing a Bugzappers hat, but if so, it is *not* currently part of Bugzappers policy for Bugzappers to make this kind of call on behalf of the package maintainers, as Jeff says. I appreciate there's a wider discussion here, but as far as Bugzappers responsibilities go, we really shouldn't close bugs in this way. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
