On Jan 5, 2008 7:02 PM, James McKenzie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Vitaliy Margolen wrote: > > Dan Kegel wrote: > > > >>>> Maybe add a resolution of NEEDMOREINFO? > >>>> > >>> There is no need to add one more reason for a bug resolution IMHO, > >>> INVALID with appropriate comment does the job. > >>> > >> INVALID seems harsh, it may scare away novice reporters. > >> > >> Do we want to make it easy to search for bugs stuck > >> in a needmoreinfo kind of state? If so, a keyword or state > >> might be handy. > >> > >> Does anybody remember good old gnu gnats, the old bug > >> tracking system? It was great this way; it had an explicit > >> notion of whose ball the court was in. I miss that. > >> - Dan > >> > > > > This is useless. Most bugs marked invalid are not Wine bugs. Only few are > > those that reporters did not include enough information. > > > I disagree. We need to have a method to let the reporter know that the > project needs more information in order to properly troubleshoot a > problem. Closing a reported bug as INVALID is not applicable in this > case. If the bug is outside of the scope of the project, it should be > marked as such. The word invalid to me means that the bug could not be > reproduced or the information provided did not disclose a solvable > problem OR the bug has already been fixed and that the fix will be in > the next release. It may be necessary to add a resolution of > NOTINPROJECT to handle those problems that are outside the scope of the > project. >
We do have a method: asking for information in a comment. Why would you close a bug as invalid if it's fixed in the next release? NOTINPROJECT? Invalid. Why make this even more complicated than it already is. Just say in a comment that the bug lies with another project and close it as invalid. In this case, invalid means 'not a Wine bug.' -- James Hawkins
