On Mon, 2012-01-23 at 07:42 +0100, David Tardon wrote: > On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 12:27:10PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 08:16:31AM +0100, David Tardon wrote: > > > The libreoffice team uses this resolution for > > > > > > 1) bugs that are not reproducible, but we _think_ we know what is the > > > cause (these are mostly "fire and forget" abrt bugs, where we managed to > > > get something useful from the backtrace) > > > > CLOSED -> WORKSFORME or INSUFFICIENT_DATA > > > > > 2) bugs that only appear under very specific conditions and are unlikely > > > to affect many users. > > > > CLOSED -> CANTFIX or WONTFIX > > > > I don't think CLOSED -> UPSTREAM is a good resolution for either of > > these classes of unfixed bugs. > > It seems I was not clear enough--I spoke about bugs we _fixed_ in > upstream, but did not backport the fixes into Fedora. But, well, I do > not really care so much--I will roll a die the next time I am not sure > which resolution to pick... It's worth noting, as a meta-point to this discussion, that it really doesn't matter a *huge* deal what resolution you pick. The data isn't used for a whole lot. I think, really, the only time we ever really use the resolution information is in random one-shot statistical analyses people do sometimes, like the X Test Week stats I post each cycle. We discussed this proposal at QA meeting today. We have no huge objection to the change, nor do we think it's a fantastic idea, really the response was 'meh'. My take on it is that if a developer wants a bug closed, they're probably going to close the bug. Taking away a resolution will only mean they'll pick a different one. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
