Joel Madero wrote:
I think we should keep labeling those as INVALID
IMHO the time spent to implement this new
ABANDONED/EXPIRED/WHATEVERstate will be almost useless...
in both cases the fault of the bug closure is the reporting user
so I really do not care at all being diplomatic with people who don't
provide necessary informations.
To put this in context - this began after several users over the course
of a few weeks got quite irate at the WFM/Invalid status.
I don't understand why those people should feel irate or offended if the
INVALID state is due to their deficiency to provide a valide testcase or
answers to legitimate QA questions...
most of the time you got an INVALID tag after 7 months of inactivity...
so, again, no reason to blame QA if you can't answer questions after 7
months
I tend to agree that INVALID is accurate but if ABANDONED and/or EXPIRED will make
them feel better, that's fine.
anyway, whatever you decide is ok for me.
but I think we are paying too much attention to users who are not giving
a valualble contribution to Bugzilla and LibO in general
I really don't care much about feelings of bad bug submitters.
probably most of them would deserve a PEBKAC status :-)
This will mostly be used by the automatic
pings and most QA people probably won't have to do much to maintain this
new status.
Best,
Joel
bye, Tommy
Context
- Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bugzilla: Adding new Status for 'abandoned' bugs? (continued)
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bugzilla: Adding new Status for 'abandoned' bugs? · Bjoern Michaelsen
(message not available)
Privacy Policy |
Impressum (Legal Info) |
Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (
MPLv2).
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our
trademark policy.