On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 07:17:51AM -0700, Joel Madero wrote: > If someone asked "is this reproducible in the latest release", but didn't > say anything else as to if they themselves had tried to reproduce it. I > would mark as NEEDINFO. I think that this is a bad policy as we can't > expect users to constantly come back when a new release is done and update > their bug saying "still an issue".
Given the current workload of both QA and development, I think it is unavoidable though. That being said it makes little sense to do that for every minor release -- but asking a reporter to try to reproduce the issue on the most recent major, if a) there is a chance that is has been fixed, because there has been work in that area b) or the bug is not trivially reproducable is reasonable IMHO. After all, new majors only appear once every 6 months, so we wont spam/frustrate reporters too much. The alternative would be lots and lots of old bugs piling up, which is also not a Good Thing(tm). Best, Bjoern _______________________________________________ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
