Robinson Tryon wrote > It sounds like the ideal situation would be for a bug to be in some > kind of 'fluid' state for some time after it's ostensibly fixed (say, > a month), and then after that point, the act of 'reopening' it would > create a new bug, rather than still operating on the same bug report > in the system. Right now, I don't think Bugzilla is flexible enough to > implement that behavior without some deep surgery, but there are some > alternatives we could deploy...
Wouldn't it make more sense to consider it definitely fixed if it was reported as fixed and a new version of the software is out (i.e. when a new version is added to Version droplist)? A similar problem on a new version is probably caused by some other change on the code and is most likely a different bug... -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Try-not-to-reopen-bugs-when-anything-more-than-a-trivial-amount-of-time-has-passed-tp4144272p4144336.html Sent from the QA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ 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/
