Importing from Mindview worth our time??

[Joel Madero]

One of my mein concerns is that we aren't keeping up with bug reports so we
may close a bug at eol without anyone from QA or any developer ever looking
at it. To me this seems unfair to the reporter.
On Jun 29, 2012 4:00 PM, "Caolán McNamara" <caolanm at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 2012-06-29 at 15:36 -0700, Joel Madero wrote:
> > I am really hesitant to support just having so many bugs floating
> > around like this. I think that marking as RESOLVED -> WONTFIX enables
> > devs to look at these if they are ever inclined to do so but makes it
> > clear to the users that we won't be doing this.
>
> Yup, I agree totally. Its not helpful to have loads of no-hoper bugs
> floating around. They should be closed with resolved->wontfix. My
> suggestion is only around the comment and criteria to use when closing
> them. e.g. here's our fedora-16 one
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=BugZappers/HouseKeeping/Fedora16#Comment_Text_2
>
> So taking the fedora comment and adjusting it for us, it would look
> like...
>
> "
> LibreOffice ''(major-version}'' changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on
> ''(date here)''. LibreOffice ''(major-version}'' is no longer
> maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or
> bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug.
>
> If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of
> LibreOffice please feel free to reopen this bug against that version.
>
> Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.
> "
>
> so for us that would mean anything reported against 3.3.X and 3.4.X is
> up for mass-closing with the above.
>
> C.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/attachments/20120629/b2a9df72/attachment.html>