New "INCOMPLETE" resolution in Bugzilla

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
84 messages Options
12345
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New "INCOMPLETE" resolution in Bugzilla

Michael Lefevre
On 2007-04-20, Andrew Schultz <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Michael Lefevre wrote:
>> If the policy is going to be that bad bug reports are closed and reporters
>> are told to file new bugs, then the resolution should not suggest that a
>> bug report could be reopened (and people shouldn't be making the point
>> that bugs can be reopened!).
>
> I don't think anyone has spoken in favor of this except for mconnor.  It
> seems bad as a blanket policy.  

I think Majken also expressed support for the idea.  I thought it was more
than mconnor's own view in favour, as he did say it was the "plan of
record".

Anyway, having the resolution sound more final leaves the way open for
such a policy, or the addition of a new status, and covers better the
case of bugs that stay resolved when the reporter doesn't follow up (as
is often the case), and therefore I like the original suggestion of
"INCOMPLETE"

--
Michael
_______________________________________________
dev-planning mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New "INCOMPLETE" resolution in Bugzilla

majken@gmail.com
grr second time I've posted a message and it's not showing up

Gerv - should we take the naming back to the bug? I believe that's the
right place for it, plus it lets us cc people as there are specific
people who should have a stronger vote than others.

Michael, Andrew:

No, the point is that they're for the most part closed and done if
they're in this resolution.  There is some leeway for the info to be
added to an early comment by the original reporter, otherwise refiling
and then duping forward is desirable. Esp if the new info is not added
by the original reporter.  I've seen a couple bugs lately where the
reporter came back after 6 months to find their bug marked fixed, but
they're still seeing the issue, because we took someone else's steps
to reproduce and ran with it.

_______________________________________________
dev-planning mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New "INCOMPLETE" resolution in Bugzilla

majken@gmail.com
In reply to this post by Andrew Schultz-2
Andrew Schultz wrote:

> Michael Lefevre wrote:
>> If the policy is going to be that bad bug reports are closed and
>> reporters
>> are told to file new bugs, then the resolution should not suggest that a
>> bug report could be reopened (and people shouldn't be making the point
>> that bugs can be reopened!).
>
> I don't think anyone has spoken in favor of this except for mconnor.  It
> seems bad as a blanket policy.  Filing is probably better if there is
> absolutely no useful info in the original bug.  I'd assert that in most
> of those cases, the bug is generally bogus (even with more info) and
> shouldn't be refiled anyway.
>
> If the objective here is to add a resolution that's less inflammatory
> than INVALID, then forcing people to re-file is an excellent way to be
> much more inflammatory.
>

Someone else can always refile for the user and then dupe them forward.
_______________________________________________
dev-planning mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New "INCOMPLETE" resolution in Bugzilla

Gervase Markham
In reply to this post by majken@gmail.com
[hidden email] wrote:
> Gerv - should we take the naming back to the bug? I believe that's the
> right place for it, plus it lets us cc people as there are specific
> people who should have a stronger vote than others.

Yep.

Gerv
_______________________________________________
dev-planning mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
12345