On Tue, 15 May 2012 15:48:24 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
Jim Henderson wrote:
For example, bugs that are against 11.1 probably aren't going to get addressed (or may already have been, or may no longer be relevant), so they should be closed as "WONTFIX".
It would be better to assign them back to the reporter, informing him that the bug will not be fixed for 11.1, and asking if he has seen the bug in the latest release (12.1). IMO, _just_ closing as "WONTFIX" does not encourage more bug reporting.
However, I think our bug-handling/processing is long overdue for review, the above is merely one of the items on the agenda.
That's a good idea, Per - in many cases, perhaps the bug would still be valid on 12.1 or 12.2, in which case it should be captured. But in some cases - for example, a bug written against a specific kernel version in (again, just spitballing) the 2.4 series? Probably even if the same symptom is seen in 12.1, the root cause will be different. I think if the bug is old enough, WONTFIX is probably a reasonable way to close it, but with a note saying "If this is happening in a current version, let us know and we'll reopen it under the new version" - that puts the onus on the reporter(s) to check and see if it's on the current releases. Otherwise, you still end up with bugs in old versions (there are still open bugs on 10.1 and 10.3) that are never going to get fixed. For example, on 11.3 there are 81 bugs in a NEEDINFO state. That's effectively got those bugs assigned to the reporter for more info, but that info hasn't been provided. Maybe they upgraded. Maybe they switched distros. But I think determining what to do moving forward will require more up- front review and work. Jim -- Jim Henderson Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org