The impending end of FC2 NEEDINFO bugs...

Toshio Kuratomi toshio at
Wed Jun 15 18:18:11 UTC 2005

On Wed, 2005-06-15 at 08:03 -0600, Stephen J. Smoogen wrote:
> On 6/9/05, Toshio Kuratomi <toshio at> wrote:
> > 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.
I'm not saying to leave bugs open-NEEDINFO.  But we need a close state
that expresses the same thing.  (The rest of my mail was why WONTFIX
does not satisfy that criteria).

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <>

More information about the Fedora-maintainers mailing list