The impending end of FC2 NEEDINFO bugs...

[Mike A. Harris]

Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote:
> On Thu, 26 May 2005, Mike A. Harris wrote:
> 
> 
>>I disagree.  There are different ways to say the same thing, and
>>while "WONTFIX" is very much true, it is NOT the best way of saying
>>it.  Or should I say instead - There are better ways of saying
>>"WONTFIX" that are more positive and friendly.
>>
>>One could argue GO_TO_HELL is a "true" resolution for some bugs,
>>but is it "friendly"?  Is it "proactive"?  Does it give the
>>reporter a warm feeling in their stomach?
>>
>>No.
> 
> 
> Hey Dave Lawrence...
> 
> Is there a way to add certain text to certain bugzilla emails, depending 
> on the presence of particular state data?
> 
> As in, if "WONTFIX" is present, some text that explains what "WONTFIX" 
> means in more positive terms?

Having to explain what "WONTFIX" means in more positive terms,
clearly shows that it is a poorly worded resolution that should
be replaced with something better - even if it means making
a few replacments.

If we choose things that are friendly and positive by default,
we don't have to explain ourselves and walk on broken glass,
which is almost always the case with WONTFIX/NOTABUG.

I'm very strongly in favour of removing the negative resolutions
from bugzilla and forcing us to creatively solve the problem by
coming up with positive replacements.  ;o)