bugs audit volunteers require

[Jan Zerebecki]

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 
> abandoned.

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
anyone.

> 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
resolved abandoned.


Jan