Hei, 2007/4/30, Elijah Newren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On 4/27/07, Vincent Untz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > What do you think? > > Either would be fine by me, and I agree the second option would be easier.
I would go with the simpler one: just mark as INCOMPLETE. It's been really annoying to receive so many notifications about useless bug reports. And those reports are kept there for too long. Just a 0,00003 cents. --lucasr _______________________________________________ Gnome-bugsquad mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-bugsquad
