The impending end of FC2 NEEDINFO bugs...

[Dave Lawrence]

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?
>
>--g
>
>_____________________  ____________________________________________
>  Greg DeKoenigsberg ] [ the future masters of technology will have
> Community Relations ] [ to be lighthearted and intelligent.  the
>             Red Hat ] [ machine easily masters the grim and the 
>                     ] [ dumb.  --mcluhan
>      Red Hat Summit ] [
>         New Orleans ] [ Learn. Network. Experience Open Source.
>     June 1/2/3 2005 ] [ (And Make Your Boss Pay For It.) 
>                       [ http://www.redhat.com/promo/summit/
>
>  
>

Not without hacking the BZ code with some If/Else conditions. We could 
change the help text on the page that explains each of the resolutions 
to be more friendly and place a link to that page in each of the emails 
that go out if a status change is made.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/page.cgi?id=bug_status.html

Dave


-- 
-------------------------------
David Lawrence <dkl at redhat.com>
   Red Hat Quality Assurance
-------------------------------
www.redhat.com   ftp.redhat.com