The impending end of FC2 NEEDINFO bugs...
Stephen J. Smoogen
smooge at gmail.com
Wed Jun 15 14:03:12 UTC 2005
On 6/9/05, Toshio Kuratomi <toshio at tiki-lounge.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 13:32 +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
> > 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
> A NEEDINFO close state is what we want. That leaves the bug reporter
> with the feeling that we care about the bug but are unable to do
> anything more about it without more information. If they care about the
> bug they can keep the dialog alive by providing the requested
> information. To let the reporter know that we won't be addressing the
> bug in the bug-targetted version of FC we can specify that we need to
> know if it still occurs on the present release.
Having gone and stuck a lot of NEEDINFO's into bugs without getting
any feedback on them.. it is a two way street. I think that the system
should be set up as NEEDINFO (auto-close within 60 days) with a polite
email saying that if the questions can't be answered within 60 days
this ticket will be closed as FORECLOSED or some such thing. Bugzilla
is a two way street with the reporter needing to answer the questions
that the reviewer needs. On the other hand... having had lots of bugs
that have never been changed from NEW to ASSIGNED or some such... the
bugzilla needs to be maintained on its side also.
Stephen J Smoogen.
CSIRT/Linux System Administrator
More information about the Fedora-maintainers