bugs audit volunteers require

[James Hawkins]

On Jan 5, 2008 7:02 PM, James McKenzie <jjmckenzie51 at sprintpcs.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>

We do have a method: asking for information in a comment.  Why would
you close a bug as invalid if it's fixed in the next release?
NOTINPROJECT?  Invalid.  Why make this even more complicated than it
already is.  Just say in a comment that the bug lies with another
project and close it as invalid.  In this case, invalid means 'not a
Wine bug.'

-- 
James Hawkins