Re: bugzilla resolutions

Martin Baulig <martin home-of-linux org> writes:

> Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com> writes:
> > My proposal is:
> > 
> >                 The problem described is a bug which will never be fixed.
> >                 This should be reserved for "unfixable" things, otherwise
> >                 use NOTGNOME or NOTABUG.
> >                 All attempts at reproducing this bug were futile, reading
> >                 the code produces no clues as to why this behavior would
> >                 occur. If more information appears later, please reopen
> >                 the bug.
> >                 The bug report describes a problem in software not 
> >                 produced by the GNOME project. It should be reported
> >                 elsewhere. This is also a suitable resolution for bugs
> >                 that appear to have been introduced by someone
> >                 creating a distribution of GNOME.
> >                 The bug report describes behavior which is the correct
> >                 behavior of the software or was reported in error.
> > 
> > I think the combination of INCOMPLETE of NOTABUG should allow covering
> > anything that comes up, and I think the above set is both more
> > descriptive and polite than WONTFIX/INCOMPLETE/INVALID.
> Sounds good to me, but can we please keep INVALID (which should be reserved
> for random junk which is not a bug report).

I was thinking that such bugs could be closed immediately as INCOMPLETE.

After all if:

 GTK+ crashes all the time!
 aasldkfas;d a;lskdflaskdf'skdfa

is a valid bug report, then 

 aasldkfas;d a;lskdflaskdf'skdfa

Isn't an invalid bug report, it is just an incomplete bug report. But
I suppose I can see your point ... I was just trying to keep the
number of resolutions down to keep things understandable.


gnome-hackers mailing list
gnome-hackers gnome org

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