Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
June 2016 Archives by date, by thread · List index


https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48015

--- Comment #15 from Joel Madero <jmadero.dev@gmail.com> ---
(In reply to jan iversen from comment #14)
(In reply to Joel Madero from comment #13)
Okay - I don't follow any of those decisions any more. Couple notes then:

1) ESC or someone else should figure out what to do about needsDevEval
(which again is literally the exact same thing in this case); 

Actually not, only for easyhacks. When I look at bugs with needsDevEval
there are typically questions about more than just code pointers.

Hm - no idea. I know that when needsDevEval was proposed it was meant to
replace propsedEasyHack....if it's not being used that way, I have no idea.


2) Markus before was really against using any other term that had "easyhack"
in it because searches become difficult so again, ESC should deal with it.
The much simpler solution is to remove easyhack, after having monitored
easyhacks closely for half a year, it is my experience that code pointers
are very seldomly added later (see the current NEEDINFO and how old they are)

That's not my call to make. If easyHacks are leaving, then so be it ;) You and
ESC can make that call. I suspect some advocates won't be happy.


My guess is lots and lots of bugs will be inadvertently closed with this
method but that's no longer my issue.
lots and lots is a bit high, we have at the moment ca. 15 issues missing
code pointer.

Fair

And if a code pointer is not supplied in 7 month, why should it be supplied
later.

The problem is that these bugs are entirely valid but will be closed as INVALID
if they go to NEEDINFO and sit there for 7 months. So, the bugs are
inappropriately closed as INVALID (because they are entirely valid) they just
don't have code pointers.


Adding more keywords like proposed_easyhacks just means more maintenance and
complexer searchs, but I am quite indifferent as long as we have a fixed
definition.

I didn't say anything about adding new keywords - I said we have one already
that at least in theory should be used for (see
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/Bugzilla/Fields/Keywords#needsDevEval)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

Context


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.