[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Firefox bugs mass-closed.



On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 11:04:58AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 08:16:28PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 09:47:40AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> 
> > > It might help to do something like use the confirmed tag to flag reports
> > > which can readily be reproduced or which otherwise don't need the
> > > submitter to confirm them.  This would mean that those bugs could be
> 
> >   Confirmed is not versionned. The fact that it was confirmed at one
> > point does not means that the bug is still here. In that regard, using
> > "found" with the proper version is better, as it tracks versions, and
> > can more efficientely prevent new pings when no new upstream was
> > released.
> 
> You're missing the point here.  What I said was that it would be an idea
> to use this for "bugs which can readily be reproduced or or which
> otherwise don't need the submitter to confirm them" and that this means
> that there is no need to ping the submitter to confirm that they are
> present in a given version.  Doing this would allow pings to be done
> more intelligently - most of the times people get annoyed with mass
> pings it seems to be because they've been pinged about some trivially
> reproducible bug.

  I don't miss the point, you miss the fact that the way exists, and is
marking the bug as "found" in a specific version. It's not a task that
only the submitter can perform, the maintainer can do that, and it will
prevent pings in that case. (see the control@ refcard if you're
confused, around the found/notfound fixed/notfixed commands).


-- 
·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O                                                madcoder@debian.org
OOO                                                http://www.madism.org

Attachment: pgplKd5NxN9pT.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: