Dotan Cohen wrote:
>> The way in which bugs are closed on b.k.o. often does not reflect
>> reality; isn't there some way to get some kind of new tag which
>> effectively means "abandoned"?
>>
>
> I would close them as INVALID with an explanation in the last
> comment.
>
>> Using WONTFIX has a problem: it tells future sufferers "don't
>> bother to file this, no matter how important it is to you, because
>> we aren't going to fix it". Also, if someone *does* submit the same
>> bug later, it's likely to be marked as a dupe without any thought
>> about the fact that the first time around WONTFIX didn't mean what
>> it normally means.
>>
>
> I have seen WONTFIX such abused, see here:
> https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=196307
>
> Does Aaron really intend on not fixing that situation?
>
Yes, this is not an exact science.
The only certain thing is that if you can't reproduce the bug that you
could mark it WFM.
I agree that WFM is better (if you can't reproduce it). However, it is
reasonable to mark the bug WONTFIX if you receive no reply and do not
want to try to reproduce the bug yourself. Here, ABANDONED or OBSOLETE
would probably be better resolutions (depending on how old the version
of the application is). I would advise against marking old bugs
NEEDSINFO since it does not mean that they are dead issues unless
revived -- it implies that they are ongoing issues.
You can always do better if you try to reproduce the bug. You can then
either mark it WFM or adopt it if you can reproduce it.
--
James Tyrer
Linux (mostly) From Scratch
___________________________________________________
This message is from the kde mailing list.
Account management: https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde.
Archives: http://lists.kde.org/.
More info: http://www.kde.org/faq.html.
