Bug triage, or spam?

[Tom Spear]

On 5/31/07, Jesse Allen <the3dfxdude at gmail.com> wrote:
> Tom,
>
> This is how I finalize bugs:
>
> * When a bugs has decisively been fixed, by a merged patch, with test
> cases, or reported by user been fixed, then I close it. If it's
> decisively "not a wine bug" close invalid.
> * When a bug is rumored to be fixed, forgotten, or simply doesn't
> appear on your end, then probably resolve fixed, abandoned, or
> worksforme appropriately.
> * When the bug has been only set to resolved, and continues to have
> erroneous activity (i.e. commenting from random visitors that don't
> understand the report), then close it to discourage use of the bug.
> * If it's a bug that I don't know anything about, I shouldn't touch it.
>
> So the reason is, only "resolved" could maybe get revisited, and
> "closed" I never want to see again. Other than that, it makes no sense
> to me to close bugs unless there is some activity related to it (i.e.
> it is proved that an uncertain fix has really been fixed and the issue
> is done). Simply closing bugs worries me as does James. It really does
> need to be case-by-case, so what we know you are doing is right.

Thanks for the clarification.  So if it is already resolved as
anything other than fixed, just leave it alone unless it continues to
get activity.  I still don't like it, but as with anything, majority
rules, so I will stop.  Sorry for the spam everyone.

-- 
Thanks

Tom