bugs audit volunteers required
jan.wine at zerebecki.de
Tue Jan 1 09:33:34 CST 2008
On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 06:49:56PM -0600, Austin English wrote:
> On Dec 31, 2007 6:42 PM, James McKenzie <jjmckenzie51 at sprintpcs.com> wrote:
> > I agree. If you cannot find the application or a demo version to work
> > with, how can you fix the
> > bug. Logs and other helpers go a long way. Maybe an intro page as to
> > what is needed and how
> > to get it. This will become more and more critical as the project
> > approaches 'release' status (1.0).
> > Also, marking bugs as having insufficient information to fix advises the
> > reporter that the project
> > needs more information to help or troubleshoot.
> Maybe add a resolution of NEEDMOREINFO?
We could add flags for "needs more information" and perhaps one
for "reproducible bug report with enough initial information".
(A flag is something that can be requested to be set and can then
be granted or denied by someone who was given the required rights.)
> > Clicking on the "NEW BUG" link should take a person to
> > a web page with reporting
> > criteria. At this point, the reporter will read through a page of what
> > should be done to report a
> > bug. After clicking a 'I read and understand the reporting
> > requirements', then the reporter will be
> > able to submit a bug. After a few cycles of this, regular reporters
> > will not be subject to this page and
> > will be taken instead to the regular bug reporting page. For the
> > occasional reporter, this is a good way
> > to handle bug reports, IMHO.
Our bugzilla is in git, patches are welcome.
I think a small and easy explanation on the new-bug form, that
refers one to a wiki page for the full guide is a good thing.
(I guess it's probably hard to filter bad bug reports
automatically and even harder to not inconvenience our good bug
reporters at the same time.)
More information about the wine-devel