Re: Bugzilla outstanding issues

[Maciej Stachowiak <mjs eazel com>]

Martin Baulig <martin home-of-linux org> writes:

> Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com> writes:
> 
> > Hmmm, I think INVALID is also too pejorative - or at least for
> > everything that Martin probably was lumping here.
> 
> Well, my idea with this keyword was that you can use it regardless of the
> state of this bug (ie. you can flag it `trash' but still have it ASSIGNED
> to someone).
> 
> Maybe we should call this `less-important' or something like this which
> doesn't sound as rude as `trash' to the reporter.
> 
> Basically my idea was that a developer should have a way to mark bugs such
> as a core dump of some unidentified RH 6.1 app without any other description
> as `trash' and then exclude them in his bug list so he can concentrate on
> fixing the other bugs but still maybe fix it later.

The correct way to deal with this is to close the bug and mark it
INVALID. Keeping a bug open but putting it in a state where you never
look at it is hostile and disruptive of the process, and we should not
enable this.
 
> Here also comes a `waiting' keyword in mind which a developer can set to such
> a bug if he wants to ask the submitter for more information (but keep it
> distinct from `help-wanted' which should be reserved for more "valuable" bug
> reports).

It's bad to mix up keywords and states/resolutions like this.

 - Maciej