Re: bugzilla resolutions

Malcolm Tredinnick <malcolm commsecure com au> writes:

> On Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 01:08:03PM -0500, Owen Taylor wrote:
> [...useful ideas snipped...]
> > Martin Baulig <martin home-of-linux org> writes:
> > > 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.
> There are a bunch of bug reports that say things like
> 	"This app sucks, get it out of here!"
> It wouldn't feel right to file them as INCOMPLETE, since the likelihood of them
> ever becoming complete is very small. We need to have a way of throwing out the
> trash.

Actually, bugs aren't supposed to be closed as INCOMPLETE until the
likelyhood of them becoming complete is very small. (Hence the NeedInfo

And if somebody files a bug report:

 "GTK+ sucks, get it out of here"

I think closing it as "NOTABUG" is fine. But again, if people want
INVALID as well, it certainly can be included.


gnome-hackers mailing list
gnome-hackers gnome org

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