Hello On 4/27/07, Vincent Untz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > With the new bug-buddy, we're all receiving tons of new bugs. It's good, > since we now know about some crashers we didn't know before. > > However, many of those bugs have invalid stack trace, and have been > created by a user who might never go to bugzilla. We're marking those > bugs as NEEDINFO, and we now have tons of NEEDINFO bugs. One issue I > have with this is that in the past, I used to use NEEDINFO to mark some > bugs that were definitely good bugs but which were just lacking an > important information. It's not possible to easily find these bugs > anymore, since they're lost in the mass of "BADSTACKTRACE" bugs. > Indeed, NEEDINFO is pretty meaningless.
> I'd like us to fix this. I see two possibilities: either introduce a new > BADSTACKTRACE status, similar to NEEDINFO but only about incomplete > stack traces, or decide that it's okay for us to close the bugs as > INCOMPLETE and reopen them if the reporter comes with more details. > This second option is probably easier. > I totally agree with you, if the person that reported is going to obtain a new trace, he/she is going to install the debug packages and reproduce the crash so they will be reporting a new bug with complete trace. It makes sense to be to base on these fact to close this bugs. As someone already suggested, it would be a good idea to change the stock message to make a reference to this. > What do you think? > > Vincent > > -- > Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. > _______________________________________________ > Gnome-bugsquad mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-bugsquad > _______________________________________________ Gnome-bugsquad mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-bugsquad
