On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 12:58:25PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> I agree entirely. What drives *me* batty in turn is when people take a
> confirmed, complete report, ask why it hasn't been fixed yet, and close
> it as invalid because obviously something that's been around for a
> couple of releases
And all the duplicates have closed - duplicates naturally don't have any
further progress.
I don't think 60 days is long enough either, but that's a different
point.
Caroline
On Sat, 2007-09-22 at 10:38 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 12:58:25PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
On Saturday 22 September 2007 05:38, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 12:58:25PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > I agree entirely. What drives *me* batty in turn is when people take a
> > confirmed, complete report, ask why it hasn't been fixed yet, and close
> > it as invalid becaus
On 22/09/2007 Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
> 60 days is to short. Even if we set a time, there are classes of bugs (such
> as crashes) that even if incomplete are not invalid (a crash bug is always a
> bug). I don't think bugs should get marked invalid except manually.
Also, how do we deal with t
On Sat, Sep 22, 2007 at 10:38:29AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 12:58:25PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
>
> > I agree entirely. What drives *me* batty in turn is when people take a
> > confirmed, complete report, ask why it hasn't been fixed yet, and close
> > it as invali
