On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 11:19:33AM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote: > #include <hallo.h> > * Marc Haber [Mon, Dec 04 2006, 08:51:51AM]: >> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 18:05:21 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) wrote: >>>On Nov 30, Magnus Holmgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> But what about the middle case, i.e. "the behaviour described >>>> could be reproduced, but it's not a bug, or at least not our >>>> fault"? (Bugzilla calls this "INVALID"). >>> I agree that it could be useful, since I get a lot of these cases... >> Why does that matter? You close everything that is not clearly a bug >> anyway, immediately. > It is not always clearly. Sometimes time or a good opportunity is needed > to reproduce an issue, even if the description is clear enough. > Unfortunately, there are maintainers that prefer to let such bug reports > rot instead of tagging them as > seen|pending|help|wontfix|moreinfo|... . I don't see "seen" as a supported tag in the BTS documentation, and using a usertag for that won't do, as people (the reporter, the ax-wielding BTS crawler, ...) won't see it. > (**) Like: "Hello, this is the automatic bug-system scanner. It became > evident that this bug report has not been processed by you, it is not > tagged with "seen" or any other tag indicating real activity. Please > change the state of this bug report appropriately if you do care about > your package." So, quid? -- Lionel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
