[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: PR#31110 may be closed
On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 11:04:48PM -0400, Michael Lorenz wrote:
>> Someone else might be able to, though. Conceivably. It's best to leave
>> such PRs open, at least when there's enough info for someone else with
>> the right hardware to try reproducing the problem, because if the bug
>> still exists it's better to get it fixed.
>> (Arguably the bug database should have a special state for such PRs,
>> so they can be found easily. I'm still working on convincing everyone
> I thought that's what 'dead' is for.
"dead" is not the right name for a state where we would like people to
come along and pick the bug up for testing or hacking.
I believe dead is intended for issues where there *isn't* enough info
for anyone else to try reproducing the problem. There is nothing that
can be done about such reports when the original submitter evaporates.
(Furthermore, there are only three PRs marked dead, and two of them
I'd be inclined to switch to closed based on reasonable standards for
"believed fixed". Also, at least some of the summary scripts count
dead PRs as open, which is not entirely desirable.)
Anyhow, the last time I floated this idea I suggested the name
"needs-testing", but I think I have a better name now: "stuck".
David A. Holland
Main Index |
Thread Index |