This is in response to Rainer's hesitation. I think there are three
solid reasons why this should be done and how it would help, one is for
QA side, one is for the project as a whole and one is for general
accuracy of FDO:
1) For QA side, if we make this a standard policy then when we push
something to NEEDINFO we can immediately say, "this bug will remain in
NEEDINFO state for 30 days, after which it will be closed as INVALID.
This "could" promote users actually providing information, if they know
that their bug will go to INVALID after 30 days maybe they'll be a bit
more rush on their side and we won't continue to accumulate NEEDINFO bugs.
2) For the project as a whole, a lot of these bugs in NEEDINFO could in
fact be bugs but developers aren't looking at them because of something
as simple as a missing attachment. Doing this "purge" might encourage
people who have simply forgotten about their bugs to take the additional
steps to make it so QA can easily confirm their bugs. Without this it is
more than likely that the bugs have zero chance of ever being looked at
again. It would be ashame to have known bugs on FDO but no one will ever
look at them, doing anything that encourages the input from the reporter
is a good thing -- I think that this does exactly that.
3) General accuracy of FDO. NEEDINFO means "maybe it's a bug, maybe it's
not, who knows" -- I think it's important for FDO to be accurate.
INVALID bugs actually means "this bug is not a valid bug". I think
NEEDINFO should be a temporary status, not a status we anticipate bugs
sitting in forever.
Best Regards,
Joel
_______________________________________________
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org
Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
