On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 04:32:20PM -0700, James McKenzie wrote: > Jan Zerebecki wrote: > > It might make sense to rename "Abandoned?" to needmoreinfo, so > > that one can key a bug as needmoreinfo and after x month with > > that keyword and no response resolve it abandoned. > > > > Though we probably don't want to use needmoreinfo on bugs where > > it's possible for someone to retest if the bug is still there > > (e.g. where there is a download for the application and the bug > > is described sufficiently to check for it oneself). > 1. I would give the original reporter less than six months to respond. > I would wait no more than a month for a response before closing as > abandoned.
I know it can easily take a month for me to reply to a bug, especially when it requires testing to determine the content of my reply. Bug reports that are waiting for a reply can be flagged as such and thus can be filtered and thus they shouldn't bother anyone. > 2. The purpose of needsmoreinfo is that the original reporter did not > supply sufficient information to reproduce the reported problem. If a > reported problem can be tested, and the problem determined, then the bug > should not be placed in a needsmoreinfo status. Another status would > apply, like NEW or CONFIRMED, at this point. I agree. Neither should such a bug be flagged "Abandoned?" or resolved abandoned. Jan