On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 12:10 +0200, Reinout van Schouwen wrote: > (Replying to gnome-bugsquad mailing list) > > Op woensdag 05-08-2009 om 09:36 uur [tijdzone +0000], schreef evince > (bugzilla.gnome.org): > > If you have any questions why you received this email, please see the text at > > the end of this email. Replies to this email are NOT read, please see the text > > at the end of this email. You can add comments to this bug at: > > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=328908 > > > > evince | general | Ver: 2.26.x > > > > Emmanuel Fleury changed: > > > > What |Removed |Added > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW > > Ever Confirmed|0 |1 > > > > > > > > > > ------- Comment #13 from Emmanuel Fleury 2009-08-05 09:36 UTC ------- > > (In reply to comment #12) > > > > Sorry for that, but then, marking it as confirmed ('NEW') would help. :) > > It's not very usual to bypass the module maintainer and confirm one's > own bugs, is it? > > regards, > Looking at the bug, and the last updates that brought this up... it seems to me that Emmanuel followed the instructions we currently have on http://live.gnome.org/Bugsquad/TriageGuide/StockResponses. Of course, our conclusion at the meeting was to be more lenient, and give the folks in the bug a time to respond before closing. So, I guess this serves as an example of why time should be given (not that we in the meeting did not know ;-). On the other hand, yes, if this is a valid bug, then versions should be updated, and the bug should not have been kept in UNCONFIRMED. On yet another hand, this has never been really enforced, so -- I guess -- it is indeed time to do it. ..C..
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part