Re: Closing bugs with bad stack trace as INCOMPLETE


2007/4/30, Elijah Newren <newren gmail com>:
On 4/27/07, Vincent Untz <vuntz gnome org> wrote:
> With the new bug-buddy, we're all receiving tons of new bugs. It's good,
> since we now know about some crashers we didn't know before.
> However, many of those bugs have invalid stack trace, and have been
> created by a user who might never go to bugzilla. We're marking those
> bugs as NEEDINFO, and we now have tons of NEEDINFO bugs. One issue I
> have with this is that in the past, I used to use NEEDINFO to mark some
> bugs that were definitely good bugs but which were just lacking an
> important information. It's not possible to easily find these bugs
> anymore, since they're lost in the mass of "BADSTACKTRACE" bugs.
> I'd like us to fix this. I see two possibilities: either introduce a new
> BADSTACKTRACE status, similar to NEEDINFO but only about incomplete
> stack traces, or decide that it's okay for us to close the bugs as
> INCOMPLETE and reopen them if the reporter comes with more details.
> This second option is probably easier.
> What do you think?

Either would be fine by me, and I agree the second option would be easier.

I would go with the simpler one: just mark as INCOMPLETE.

It's been really annoying to receive so many notifications about
useless bug reports. And those reports are kept there for too long.

Just a 0,00003 cents.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]