Re: bugsquad guidelines

[Andrew Sobala <andrew sobala net>]

Hmmm. I would say that sometimes you get bugs where the steps to
reproduce are so twisted that no-one can work out what they are - the
dreaded word "spontaneous" springs to mind :-) However, the stack trace
means that sometimes people can work out what's crashing just from the
crashing function. And if it doesn't get confirmed, no-one will ever see
it.

Of course in bugzilla at the moment, it's a moot point since
confirmed/unconfirmed is a bit of a mess :-)

On Mon, 2002-11-11 at 09:20, Heath Harrelson wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-11-10 at 14:50, Andrew Sobala wrote:
> > -- s/a complete stack trace automatically means it is confirmed/a
> > complete stack trace means it should be confirmed/
> 
> I don't really agree with this.  There are lots of bugs where the
> reporter never says what they did to get the bug, and nobody ever sees
> the bug again.  Since nobody can reproduce the bug, it's by definition
> *not* confirmed, in my opinion.
> 
> But that's me.
> 
> Heath
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gnome-bugsquad mailing list
> Gnome-bugsquad gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-bugsquad
> 
-- 
Andrew

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GS/M d--(-) s: a17 C++(+++) UL+ P++ L+++ E--- W+>++ N(-) o? K? w--(---)
!O M V-
PS+ PE Y+ PGP+>++++ t@ 5-- X- R tv-@ b++++ DI+++ D>---- G- e- h! r--- y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------