It's a bad practice and they have disabled replies.
"Needs more info" is the universal cry of "I don't want to do it now."
Having been in IT over 30 years and worked at countless shops as a
consultant, I've seen that one used first hand to facilitate doing
nothing. I've seen it used on bug reports which had 3 pages of content
with perfectly reproducible steps to recreate a bug.
Allowing an auto-close with "needs more info" allows people to juice the
numbers without actually doing anything. Same as auto-closing with
"Version no longer supported." Suddenly thousands of bugs get closed and
it looks like the team is doing a great job, when in fact they are doing
very little.
Btw, you can't "just reply" to it.
====
This is the mail system at host gateway34.websitewelcome.com.
I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not
be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below.
For further assistance, please send mail to postmaster.
If you do so, please include this problem report. You can
delete your own text from the attached returned message.
The mail system
<jira-nore...@qt-project.org>: host mx.qt-project.org[193.209.87.4] said: 550
5.1.1<jira-nore...@qt-project.org>: Recipient address rejected: User
unknown in local recipient table (in reply to RCPT TO command)
====
I have reported it. They chose to close without looking. My conscience
is clear. I will have to find a work around for this and like every
other work around done for a client, they will own it because they paid
for the time. I will be barred from recreating it for the length of the
non-compete/NDA which for some of my contracts can be up to 7 years due
to length of clinical trials.
The "How Far We've Come" post series was prep work grouping together
things which I have done in the past and are no longer subject to
non-compete/NDA.
On a personal note, in my 30+ years of IT, I've only had 2, count them
2, clients which either returned fixes back to a project or allowed me
to return them.
The first was a complete port of Netwise RPC to the Alpha platform.
Client had to have it, vendor didn't want to pay for it. Client paid me
to do it and promised to return the entire product which is how they got
the source code. The vendor was supposed to take ownership of the code
and provide support for the platform. We essentially gave them a new
product to market. Shortly after I completed and returned the port,
Microsoft ate the Netwise RPC product owner and the product disappeared
like most everything else Microsoft tries to "improve after purchase."
The second time was all of that QChar stuff which the client never got
to use.
On 10/10/2017 01:45 AM, interest-requ...@qt-project.org wrote:
We use JIRA as well, and it is our practice to close reports with comments
(like the one Roland has pointed out) when we need more information.? The user
(reporter) gets notified of the closure, and the request for info is included
with that notification. The user can reply to the notification, which then
re-opens the issue.
It may be that the Trolls are using the same workflow, so you need only reply
with the additional info, and the issue report will be re-opened.? By the same
token, if you never reply, then it stays closed and off their radar.
--
Roland Hughes, President
Logikal Solutions
(630)-205-1593
http://www.theminimumyouneedtoknow.com
http://www.infiniteexposure.net
http://www.johnsmith-book.com
http://www.logikalblog.com
http://www.interestingauthors.com/blog
http://lesedi.us/
http://onedollarcontentstore.com
_______________________________________________
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
