If anything this bug should just have been changed to an enhancement - Major reason functionality was not effected. This would have been a far more productive exercise.
If I log a serious bug and some one closes it wontfix, and after considering the impact of a fault in functionality I am happy to re-open, however I change it back to the QA team for re-assessment. On the other hand if I get some code cutter that is verging on abuse or enters into conversation of anything Like "The bug in the functionality, is noted, however considered not import - why are you worrying me... If they become emotive in any response I will close the bug as wontfix as I will not enter into a non-factual emotive discussion. The concept of quality in creation and testing of new code they produce myself is in my opinion - extremely poor, non verified and management obviously takes no interest in how development or Quality measures are being implemented by suse.de. I do have respect for many guys, but I know the ones I will close bug as wontfix - comment - author has no confidence in bug assignee. Scott :-) Alexey Eremenko wrote: > hi all ! > > Why are Novell guys closing perfectly valid bugs as WONTFIX ? > They should stop being lazy all the day. That is not a feature-request > but a bug. > The lazy number one is: marcio ferreira and Stefan Hundhammer > > link: > https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=264716 > > What's worse is that they tell me something like: "If you do that > again I will formally ask a certain account of bugzilla to be > canceled." > > How am I supposed it eat that as a community-member ? >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
