The impending end of FC2 NEEDINFO bugs...

[Joe Orton]

On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 07:40:59PM -0400, 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:
> > WILL_REVIEW_ONCE_REQUESTED_INFO_IS_SUPPLIED
> 
> 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.)

If we want to leave the bugs "awaiting more info" and avoid upsetting
anyone by providing a "negative" resolution we can just leave them open
forever in NEEDINFO, that's no big deal.

But... news flash... *we are not going to fix FC2 bugs any more*.  That
is the policy of this project -- no more FC2 updates, ergo no more FC2
bugs fixed.  If the bugs also exist in later releases the reporters can
refile appropriate, your text already clearly explains that.

So I think it's better to just be honest and WONTFIX them.  Yes, it's
negative, yes, it might upset a few people, no, it's not a big deal,
it's just a bug tracking system.

joe