https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48015
--- Comment #15 from Joel Madero <jmadero....@gmail.com> --- (In reply to jan iversen from comment #14) > (In reply to Joel Madero from comment #13) > > Okay - I don't follow any of those decisions any more. Couple notes then: > > > > 1) ESC or someone else should figure out what to do about needsDevEval > > (which again is literally the exact same thing in this case); > > Actually not, only for easyhacks. When I look at bugs with needsDevEval > there are typically questions about more than just code pointers. Hm - no idea. I know that when needsDevEval was proposed it was meant to replace propsedEasyHack....if it's not being used that way, I have no idea. > > 2) Markus before was really against using any other term that had "easyhack" > > in it because searches become difficult so again, ESC should deal with it. > The much simpler solution is to remove easyhack, after having monitored > easyhacks closely for half a year, it is my experience that code pointers > are very seldomly added later (see the current NEEDINFO and how old they are) That's not my call to make. If easyHacks are leaving, then so be it ;) You and ESC can make that call. I suspect some advocates won't be happy. > > > > My guess is lots and lots of bugs will be inadvertently closed with this > > method but that's no longer my issue. > lots and lots is a bit high, we have at the moment ca. 15 issues missing > code pointer. Fair > And if a code pointer is not supplied in 7 month, why should it be supplied > later. The problem is that these bugs are entirely valid but will be closed as INVALID if they go to NEEDINFO and sit there for 7 months. So, the bugs are inappropriately closed as INVALID (because they are entirely valid) they just don't have code pointers. > > Adding more keywords like proposed_easyhacks just means more maintenance and > complexer searchs, but I am quite indifferent as long as we have a fixed > definition. I didn't say anything about adding new keywords - I said we have one already that at least in theory should be used for (see https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/Bugzilla/Fields/Keywords#needsDevEval) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Libreoffice-ux-advise mailing list Libreoffice-ux-advise@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-ux-advise