bugs audit volunteers require
jan.wine at zerebecki.de
Sat Jan 12 05:41:51 CST 2008
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
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
> 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
More information about the wine-devel