Re: Closing bugs with bad stack trace as INCOMPLETE

["Lucas Rocha" <lucasr gnome org>]

Hei,

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.

--lucasr