bugs audit volunteers require

[James McKenzie]

Vitaliy Margolen wrote:
> Dan Kegel wrote:
>   
>>>> Maybe add a resolution of NEEDMOREINFO?
>>>>         
>>> There is no need to add one more reason for a bug resolution IMHO,
>>> INVALID with appropriate comment does the job.
>>>       
>> INVALID seems harsh, it may scare away novice reporters.
>>
>> Do we want to make it easy to search for bugs stuck
>> in a needmoreinfo kind of state?  If so, a keyword or state
>> might be handy.
>>
>> Does anybody remember good old gnu gnats, the old bug
>> tracking system?  It was great this way; it had an explicit
>> notion of whose ball the court was in.  I miss that.
>> - Dan
>>     
>
> This is useless. Most bugs marked invalid are not Wine bugs. Only few are 
> those that reporters did not include enough information.
>   
I disagree.  We need to have a method to let the reporter know that the 
project needs more information in order to properly troubleshoot a 
problem.  Closing a reported bug as INVALID is not applicable in this 
case.  If the bug is outside of the scope of the project, it should be 
marked as such.  The word invalid to me means that the bug could not be 
reproduced or the information provided did not disclose a solvable 
problem OR the bug has already been fixed and that the fix will be in 
the next release.  It may be necessary to add a resolution of 
NOTINPROJECT to handle those problems that are outside the scope of the 
project. 

Just my .02 dollars.

James McKenzie