The impending end of FC2 NEEDINFO bugs...
Matthew Miller
mattdm at mattdm.org
Wed May 25 02:26:55 UTC 2005
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 02:24:30PM -1000, Warren Togami wrote:
> I don't think it should be DEFERRED but rather CURRENTRELEASE. DEFERRED
> implies that the bug intends to be revisited later, which is not the
> case. They were given a chance to change the bug from FC2 to a newer
> release and NEEDINFO status. If they haven't responded by now just
> assume it is fixed, and tell them about changing the Version and
> reopening if not.
Many of these *aren't* fixed in the current release, though. They're feature
requests that were rejected or ignored, non-reproducable one-time-glitches,
various misunderstandings of the way things work, and yep, actual bugs that
got dropped on the floor and aren't going to get addressed in reality.
I think DEFERRED is the best option (given the description in bugzilla)
given the mix of bugs -- many of them *are* actually gonna be real issues.
The other alternative that makes sense is WONTFIX.
--
Matthew Miller mattdm at mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
Current office temperature: 73 degrees Fahrenheit.
More information about the Fedora-maintainers
mailing list