Re: Why not scan for unmaintained packages and orphan them?
On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 11:19:33AM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include <hallo.h>
> * Marc Haber [Mon, Dec 04 2006, 08:51:51AM]:
>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 18:05:21 +0100, md@Linux.IT (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
>>>On Nov 30, Magnus Holmgren <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>>> But what about the middle case, i.e. "the behaviour described
>>>> could be reproduced, but it's not a bug, or at least not our
>>>> fault"? (Bugzilla calls this "INVALID").
>>> I agree that it could be useful, since I get a lot of these cases...
>> Why does that matter? You close everything that is not clearly a bug
>> anyway, immediately.
> It is not always clearly. Sometimes time or a good opportunity is needed
> to reproduce an issue, even if the description is clear enough.
> Unfortunately, there are maintainers that prefer to let such bug reports
> rot instead of tagging them as
> seen|pending|help|wontfix|moreinfo|... .
I don't see "seen" as a supported tag in the BTS documentation, and
using a usertag for that won't do, as people (the reporter, the
ax-wielding BTS crawler, ...) won't see it.
> (**) Like: "Hello, this is the automatic bug-system scanner. It became
> evident that this bug report has not been processed by you, it is not
> tagged with "seen" or any other tag indicating real activity. Please
> change the state of this bug report appropriately if you do care about
> your package."