Re: bugzilla bugzappers?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, 04 Nov 2010 11:57:58 +0100, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:

> * Orcan Ogetbil [04/11/2010 09:35] :
>>
>> The extreme inefficiency comes from the bugs that I can't reproduce,
>> the upstream can't reproduce, and the user isn't responding. And this
>> happens *a lot*. Most of the time, they don't even put down the steps
>> to reproduce. Can we at least mandate including the steps to reproduce
>> in the ABRT reports?
> 
> Is there any reason you can't close these bugs with a INSUFFICIENT_DATA
> resolution? This seems to be the most appropriate thing to do in this
> case.
> 
Even better: can abrt-reported bugs that have been NEEDINFO for more 
than, say, 7 days be automatically closed INSUFFICIENT_DATA?

That'd be quite a huge timesaver. Better duplicate detection would be 
nice too.

-- 
Michel Alexandre Salim
Fedora Project Contributor: http://fedoraproject.org/

Email:  salimma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  | GPG key ID: 78884778
Jabber: hircus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx       | IRC: hircus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   - against proprietary attachments

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux