Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2012 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Hello Marc,

I feel the same as you. some of these bugs are not closed because they "need info" but because we need developers. We can't do much about that, but we should not behave like this to our polite bug reporters. This is not a serious way to embrace community members.

I can understand that the developers and QA team needs a better overview of bugs - but this is not the best way to deal with the problem. Perhaps better communication or something else could help, but not this approach, please.

Leif Lodahl

Leif Lodahl

On 14-08-2012 20:48, Marc Grober wrote:
This (see the quote below) is simply unacceptable. In fact, with respect
to the bug on which I received this little gem quite a few people had
been at pains to clearly identify the problem and the potential
solution, and neither having changed at all, there had been no changes
to the bug report save angry responses everytime someone tried to close
it because it had not been updated. What is Florian really saying?  It
would appear to be either that the product is SOOOOO buggy we have
decided to ignore all the bug reports OR that users are SOOOO stupid
that we are going to ignore all bug reports....  Thank you, Florian, for
the vote of confidence.

If I had the time I would go through and re-open every one of these
simply to give Florian something to do.

Dear bug submitter!
Due to the fact, that there are a lot of NEEDINFO bugs with no answer within
the last six months, we close all of these bugs.
To keep this message short, more infos are available @
Thanks for understanding and hopefully updating your bug, so that everything is
prepared for developers to fix your problem.

For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to:
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


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.