Chris Shoemaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 3a) The implication is that bugs currently marked NEEDINFO need to
> be re-evaluated for usefulness and that the bar for closing them is
> not necessarily any lower than for UNCONFIRMED bugs. But, in the
> future, NEEDINFO would mean that the bug has already been deemed
> useless without more info.
I personally use NEEDINFO for bugs that aren't necessarily useless,
but that I don't want to continually look at because I know I'm
waiting for more info. For example, I may be waiting for a user to
test a fix, but I don't want to mark the bug as CLOSED or FIXED until
I get the verification. Yet I don't want to keep it as NEW or
ASSIGNED, either, because I really am waiting for information from the
user.
I /do/ agree that putting a bug into NEEDINFO is an implicit contract
to watch the bug for changes and make sure it gets re-opened or closed
when more info arrives. But I don't want to make NEEDINFO
/necessarily/ imply "this bug can be closed if we get no response from
the user".
> What do you all think?
>
> -chris
-derek
--
Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory
Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board (SIPB)
URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/ PP-ASEL-IA N1NWH
[EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP key available
_______________________________________________
gnucash-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
