The impending end of FC2 NEEDINFO bugs...

Mike A. Harris mharris at
Wed Jun 8 23:52:17 UTC 2005

Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 05:55:28PM -0400, Mike A. Harris wrote:
>>However, "CANFIX" implies that you (or someone) "can" actually
>>fix the issue, which in reality may not be true.  As such, I would
>>refrain from using CANFIX.  Proactivity focuses on stating what
>>you will do, so I would use something like:
> I think this is a great idea provided we can somehow condense it down to,
> like, 12 letters :) and, crucially, if someone _does_ provide info, they get
> some kind of reaction. (Which I understand is hard.)

AWAITING_INFO or PENDING_INFO.  When a bug is in any "closed" state,
and someone supplies more info, it is their responsibility to set the
state back to "REOPENED" so that the issue is reactivated as an open
issue however.  Then it should get added to queues as appropriate,
depending on how each team handles bugs, as this is still a team
specific handling issue, and in most cases, an individual developer
bug handling issue.

Ultimately, both users and developers would benefit more from global
bug handling methodology consistency, but that's a long way off IMHO.

More information about the Fedora-maintainers mailing list