The impending end of FC2 NEEDINFO bugs...

[Mike A. Harris]

Tom Lane wrote:
> "Mike A. Harris" <mharris at www.linux.org.uk> writes:
> 
>>Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>>Is there a reason not to leave such bugs in NEEDINFO state forever?
> 
> 
>>Yes.  Then there are 100000 bugs open forever, that will never
>>be addressed.
> 
> 
> Fair enough.  What about adding a resolution category "closed for lack
> of information", which we could use if something stays in NEEDINFO
> too long?  Or I suppose we could use WORKSFORME ...

Still sounds like a negative response to me.  Any negative statements
should be inverted and made positive.

CLOSED->REQUIRES_MORE_INFORMATION

Semantically similar to "NEEDINFO", but this one is essentially
"CLOSED->NEEDINFO" rather than OPEN_STILL->NEEDINFO, so different.

Another one could be: CLOSED->REQUIRES_RESPONSE

And another useful one would be:  CLOSED->EXTERNAL_ISSUE

(for things that might indeed be bugs, but are not OUR bug.
  Various bugzillas have a NOTOURBUG resolution for this,
  but that is negative/reactive, whereas EXTERNAL_ISSUE is
  pointing out what the problem is, rather than what it isn't.)