Re: auto-reject && NEEDINFO state

[guenther <guenther rudersport de>]

> do we have a policy for NEEDINFO bugs that are on the auto-reject list? 

Bugs that *really* need more info and habe been set to NEED for a reason
generally should not be added to the reject list.

It is the duty of the bugsquad member who adds the bug to the reject
list, to take this into consideration. Hence the pretty strict
privileges to do so. If in doubt, don't do it. Same as with any bug
hunting activity.

I explained this particular issue [1] to the maintainers -- for the
reason that a NEW or UNCO bug has been added to the reject list and it
later turns out we need more info. There are ways to do both (reject
with response).


> yesterday, i removed 364864 from the auto-reject list because it seemed
> pretty useless to me to reject a *needinfo* bug with "only" 60 dups
> which needs more info.
> 
> now we have 349697 (auto-reject && NEEDINFO) which could have been fixed
> in SVN (both trunk and gtk-2-10 branch) by 396161.
> what to do here?
> i suggest to keep the auto-reject state, but edit the "Reason" field, so
> we send out an email like
> "Thanks for taking the time to report this crash. We hope that this
> issue has been fixed by now, but need some confirmation from reporters
> that run a current SVN version of gtk 2.10 or 2.11.
> If you compile from SVN, we ask you to leave a comment on the bug
> report."

Haven't had a close look at this bug in quite a while. Though generally,
this comment / email does not make sense at all. Stacktraces generated
by the average users' installation usually differs significantly from
those generated by "latest SVN", which (again, usually) have debugging
enabled. At the very least they differ significantly enough to not be
caught by the (strict) auto rejecter.

This said: I believe your mail response will never reach anyone running
latest SVN, or at least running a self built desktop.

  guenther


> comments (especially by guenther and bkor)?
> otherwise i'll do this.
> 
> i also plan to take a look at the simple-dup-finder results for *closed*
> bug reports that still get dups and would auto-reject them by adding a
> reason ("this bug has been fixed! update!!"), like i did here:
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=114425#c37
> anyone contradicting?


[1] http://live.gnome.org/Bugsquad/AutoReject

-- 
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0  ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}