On 09.11.2015 23:11, Tommy wrote:
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...
i think it's just poor usability of bugzilla. the word INVALID sort of
makes it sound like it should never have been filed in the first place
and it's all the reporter's fault, while e.g. INSUFFICIENT_DATA is
somewhat weaker in assigning blame to the reporter - it may be there's a
valid bug, but we just don't have enough data to fix anything.
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.