On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 11:04:58AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 08:16:28PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 09:47:40AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > It might help to do something like use the confirmed tag to flag reports > > > which can readily be reproduced or which otherwise don't need the > > > submitter to confirm them. This would mean that those bugs could be > > > Confirmed is not versionned. The fact that it was confirmed at one > > point does not means that the bug is still here. In that regard, using > > "found" with the proper version is better, as it tracks versions, and > > can more efficientely prevent new pings when no new upstream was > > released. > > You're missing the point here. What I said was that it would be an idea > to use this for "bugs which can readily be reproduced or or which > otherwise don't need the submitter to confirm them" and that this means > that there is no need to ping the submitter to confirm that they are > present in a given version. Doing this would allow pings to be done > more intelligently - most of the times people get annoyed with mass > pings it seems to be because they've been pinged about some trivially > reproducible bug.
I don't miss the point, you miss the fact that the way exists, and is marking the bug as "found" in a specific version. It's not a task that only the submitter can perform, the maintainer can do that, and it will prevent pings in that case. (see the control@ refcard if you're confused, around the found/notfound fixed/notfixed commands). -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O [EMAIL PROTECTED] OOO http://www.madism.org
pgpOnmgaZUcy5.pgp
Description: PGP signature
