Re: bugsquad guidelines

[Malcolm Tredinnick <malcolm commsecure com au>]

Most of this I agree with, but...
On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 10:50:39PM +0000, Andrew Sobala wrote:
> -- gentoo and LFS: are you _sure_ we can just recklessly close crashers
> on these systems? I didn't know that...

Yeah, closing them blindly is bad. Sometimes the bugs are due to our
packages, sometimes due to the distribution. If the person provides good
information (and provides more if needed after a NEEDINFO request), then
ignoring them is not good (and I realise that particularly LFS leads to
a lot of stress in trying to help them since a lot of LFS people do not
have the experience to work with LFS in the first place; but life sucks
a bit like that).

> -- crashers: in general, not a good idea to ever NEEDINFO them. NEEDINFO
> means that the bug cannot be fixed without further information; the
> stack trace is a very useful source of information in most cases.

This is a tricky one. But I guess the "bugsquad" pass should not
automatically NEEDINFO these bugs. I have a fair amount of experience
fixing bugs that just contained stack traces and in some cases it's
possible, whereas in a lot of cases you really need the "steps to
reproduce this bug". So probably leave them alone and let the developer
decided whether or not they need more information.

Malcolm

-- 
The hardness of butter is directly proportional to the softness of
the bread.