Re: Bugzilla outstanding issues

[Maciej Stachowiak <mjs eazel com>]

Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com> writes:

> Dan Winship <danw helixcode com> writes:
> 
> > >         trash   - Bug report was closed because it was crap/useless etc.,
> > >                   set this keyword to distinguish it from other closed
> > >                   bug reports so we can exclude them in queries
> > 
> > Bugzilla already has this. You mark the bug "INVALID" rather than
> > "RESOLVED".
> 
> Hmmm, I think INVALID is also too pejorative - or at least for
> everything that Martin probably was lumping here.
> 
> A Netscape crash bug report is possibly INVALID (but a bug, even if it
> isn't _our_ bug), but what about a backtrace of some unidentified
> GNOME app from Red Hat 6.1 ... that's not an invalid bug. Sure, its
> not a useful bug report, but the person has a valid problem with
> GNOME.
> 
> Having separate resolutions NOTGNOME/INCOMPLETE/OBSOLETE is quite
> possibly overkill, but unless we stem the tied of bugs falling into
> these categories, quite possibly useful.

While this might be more courteous, I doubt the distinction is
meaningful (and it's pretty fuzzy - if you get a crash report for some
unknown app, is that NOTGNOME or INCOMPLETE?)

I have never seen a problem with a user being offended by the INVALID
state personally (but then, we always give an explanation of why the
bug was marked so, and let the user reopen if they supply missing
info).

 - Maciej