On Sat, 2012-06-30 at 19:49 +0200, Rainer Bielefeld wrote:
> during the last QA call we decided to do a mass close for NEEDINFO bugs
> without reaction for a too long time (>> 1000). There simply is too much
> time wasted by several people asking again and again for details without
> an answer.
I'm going to mark it as WONTFIX and add the whiteboard status, if this
changes I can filter it out myself and change it appropriately. I'll add
Michaels comment to the bug as well.
Thanks for the input all, I look forward on sitting in on that conference
call in a couple weeks.
Joel
On Sat, Jun
Joel Madero schrieb:
We could put WONTFIX with a message to the reporter that states.
Hi all,
during the last QA call we decided to do a mass close for NEEDINFO bugs
without reaction for a too long time (>> 1000). There simply is too much
time wasted by several people asking again and again
Hi Joel,
On Sat, 2012-06-30 at 08:38 -0700, Joel Madero wrote:
> Michael, not quite sure where you're talking about putting that
> statement.
:-) in the message when we close it.
> We could put WONTFIX with a message to the reporter that states.
So - I start to like the bravery
Michael, not quite sure where you're talking about putting that statement.
Noel, agreed, but I think we can be better than that ;) My goal is and
continues to be to have all bug statuses correct by the end of the year and
then to never have a bug go UNCONFIRMED for more than a month (maybe 2)
I l
On Fri, 2012-06-29 at 17:35 -0700, Joel Madero wrote:
> One of my mein concerns is that we aren't keeping up with bug reports
> so we may close a bug at eol without anyone from QA or any developer
> ever looking at it. To me this seems unfair to the reporter.
We could append a statement a
Hi Joel, *,
On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 12:36 AM, Joel Madero wrote:
> I am really hesitant to support just having so many bugs floating around
> like this. I think that marking as RESOLVED -> WONTFIX enables devs to look
> at these if they are ever inclined to do s
But doesn't really match. The res
On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 2:35 AM, Joel Madero wrote:
> One of my mein concerns is that we aren't keeping up with bug reports so we
> may close a bug at eol without anyone from QA or any developer ever looking
> at it. To me this seems unfair to the reporter.
>
It is a little rough but it's a reali
One of my mein concerns is that we aren't keeping up with bug reports so we
may close a bug at eol without anyone from QA or any developer ever looking
at it. To me this seems unfair to the reporter.
On Jun 29, 2012 4:00 PM, "Caolán McNamara" wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-06-29 at 15:36 -0700, Joel Mader
On Fri, 2012-06-29 at 15:36 -0700, Joel Madero wrote:
> I am really hesitant to support just having so many bugs floating
> around like this. I think that marking as RESOLVED -> WONTFIX enables
> devs to look at these if they are ever inclined to do so but makes it
> clear to the users that we won'
I am really hesitant to support just having so many bugs floating around
like this. I think that marking as RESOLVED -> WONTFIX enables devs to look
at these if they are ever inclined to do so but makes it clear to the users
that we won't be doing this (almost guaranteed). I think if we just keep
a
On Fri, 2012-06-29 at 14:11 -0700, Joel Madero wrote:
> I feel like we should close it as WONTFIX. Reasons:
> 5. Not one other user has posted on the bug since its creation 5+
> months ago
> request:
> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44606&list_id=88922
There isn't anything anything
I try not to bug devs over these kinds of things but I came across one of
these enhancement requests that I wanted to see what everyone thought.
The request is to get IMPORT working for the software program MINDVIEW.
I feel like we should close it as WONTFIX. Reasons:
1. The software isn't free
13 matches
Mail list logo
