[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: PR#31110 may be closed
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Apr 14, 2008, at 00:09, David Holland wrote:
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
such PRs open, at least when there's enough info for someone else
the right hardware to try reproducing the problem, because if the
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
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.
Or none of us can actually test if the bug's fixed for lack of
hardware, which is the case with at least some of those I marked dead.
(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
I left them 'dead' precisely because I can't be sure the bug's fixed.
Also, at least some of the summary scripts count dead PRs as open,
which is not entirely desirable.)
Yeah, that's just annoying.
Anyhow, the last time I floated this idea I suggested the name
"needs-testing", but I think I have a better name now: "stuck".
I'm fine with that.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Main Index |
Thread Index |