On 30/06/12 01:00, Caolán McNamara wrote: > On Fri, 2012-06-29 at 15:36 -0700, Joel Madero wrote: >> I am really hesitant to support just having so many bugs floating >> around like this. I think that marking as RESOLVED -> WONTFIX enables >> devs to look at these if they are ever inclined to do so but makes it >> clear to the users that we won't be doing this. > > Yup, I agree totally. Its not helpful to have loads of no-hoper bugs > floating around. They should be closed with resolved->wontfix.
i don't really think this is a good idea in general. for bugs that are NEEDINFO, or for enhancement requests, sure, if there is no interest then close them after some time. but for bugs that describe a real defect that's reproducible in the current version, i don't see what we gain by simply resolving the bug WONTFIX; that doesn't make the defect go away, so likely it'll just be reported again anyway, especially if it already has some duplicates. _______________________________________________ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: [email protected] Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
