I read quickly this thread, so certainly I'll repeat some things from one or another person here but here's what I'm doing: - if "NEW" or "UNCONFIRMED" and need some info (just 1 or several), I put a comment and put State to NEEDINFO - if "NEEDINFO" without feedback for at least 2 months: - either I could give a try and it worked for me so WFM - or I couldn't give a try (not the same env, not example file when necessary, etc.), put it INVALID (if reporter didn't answer and we need more info to advance, no need to pile up this bug which became useless)
In both cases, I put a comment explaining why I update like this and indicate that the bug can be reopened if it can be reproduced with a newer version (last one if possible) when quite old version (ie < 3.6.X), and in this case, asking also for adding information demanded in previous comment. Perhaps I made some exceptions but I try not putting a bug from "NEW" or "UNCONFIRMED" to WFM or INVALID. Julien -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Minutes-QA-Call-11-16-2012-tp4019791p4030997.html Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
