https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=383753
--- Comment #4 from Boudewijn Rempt <b...@valdyas.org> --- On Wed, 30 Aug 2017, Christoph Feck wrote: > https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=383753 > > --- Comment #3 from Christoph Feck <cf...@kde.org> --- > > I'm marking this as RESOLVED INVALID, which just means that it's not our > > bug. > > We have UPSTREAM and DOWNSTREAM to indicate that it is not our bug. Do you > know > of tickets that we need to correct? Here's a bug that I close as invalid: https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384202 > > > WONTFIX implies that we know it's a bug, but are [...] refusing to fix it > > WONTFIX should not be used for bugs. The exception is when WONTFIX is used as > in CANNOTFIX (because of requirements or limitations of the underlying > components), such as X11 requiring grabs for popups, etc. If a developer is > not > able to fix a bug, the ticket must remain open. Again, do you know of tickets > where a developer used this resolution incorrectly? I use wontfix when the report is about something that shouldn't be "fixed" -- the reporter doesn't know how blending mode maths work, for instance, and demands that the 2 * 2 becomes 3. > For feature request, a developer may decide that the feature should never be > added and use the WONTFIX solution. The alternative to marking feature > requests > as WONTFIX is keeping them open. This is the norm, because a future developer > might have a different opinion than the developer who first decided this. If, > however, multiple developers raised valid points against a feature, it makes > sense to close as WONTFIX. If it was a useful idea, it will be suggested again > years later anyway, so a different batch of developers can decide anew. > > > I'd also like a TRIAGED_COULD_NOT_CONFIRM > > We have keywords, such as "triaged", "investigated", "reproducible", > "needs_testcase" and "needs_verification". Yeah, but what resolution belongs to that? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
