On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Joel Madero <jmadero....@gmail.com> wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > >> >> Insufficient Data though can also be used for situations where a bug can >> not be reproduced due to, well, insufficient data.. i.e. happened one >> time crash and no stack trace, no exact steps to reproduce, even if the >> reporter was or would be willing to provide ... all cases where >> WORKSFORME sounds a bit odd and lax (which is a valid resolution if the >> given steps do not lead to the described failure), but ABANDONED >> wouldn't fit either, IMHO.. > True - I'm happy with either of them. I'm not so sure this will tame the > rude users from going on rants about having to provide sufficient > information but it's a start :)
I do not care either about the exact wording... the only point I'm looking to improve upon is that 'Works for me' is a cop-out and is bound to put the recipient in a bad mood even a willing and cooperative reporter. I'd like wording that reflect that the bug is not just 'ignored' or the report dismissed, but that it cannot be acted upon, due to a lack of follow up by the reporter or other in position to reproduce, or due to an apparent impossibility to reproduce coupled with a lack of exploitable data from the original report. Yes it won't prevent some of the outburst we see on occasion, but at least it won't feed the beast either. Norbert _______________________________________________ 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/
