Re: bugzilla resolutions

[Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com>]

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

> Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com> writes:
> 
> > What I wrote for NOTABUG was:
> > 
> > > >  NOTABUG
> > > >                 The bug report describes behavior which is the correct
> > > >                 behavior of the software or was reported in error.
> > 
> > My interpretation would be the second part. What the bug reporter
> > chooses to think is not my concern.
> 
> I don't think NOTABUG is appropriate for trash.
> 
> Closing something as INVALID means that nobody will ever want to look at it
> again and that it's gone forever.
> 
> Closing something as NOTABUG means that it's not a bug, but it is still worth
> to look at this bug report at a later time.

Hmmm, that sounds like a rather fine distinction. I generally wouldn't
close something as NOTABUG unless I was sure that I never wanted
to look at it again. (We have WONTFIX for things that are bugs,
but not worth attention.)

Also, if we have bugs that are really completely and utterly bogus, we
shouldn't leave them assigned to say, gtk+, but assign them to some
particlar package. 

So, I'm still of the opinion that INVALID isn't needed, and I've
changed bugzilla to remove it. But if people really want it and
someone writes a description of INVALID for bug_status.html, (my
attempt ended "Don't use this resolution"), I'll add it back.

Regards,
                                        Owen

_______________________________________________
gnome-hackers mailing list
gnome-hackers gnome org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-hackers