| |||||||||||||
GNOME 3.4 releasedGNOME 3.4 releasedPosted Mar 30, 2012 10:11 UTC (Fri) by josh (subscriber, #17465)In reply to: GNOME 3.4 released by ovitters Parent article: GNOME 3.4 released
I was talking specifically about the practice of mass-closing bugs due to the release of a new GNOME version, without any particular reason to believe that the specific bug has gone away.
I don't see anything wrong with requesting more information on a specific bug and closing it if the reporter doesn't provide that information. I just object to having to babysit a pile of bugs and mechanically reopen them each time someone mechanically closes them.
(Log in to post comments)
GNOME 3.4 released Posted Mar 30, 2012 11:29 UTC (Fri) by alankila (subscriber, #47141) [Link]
It is a tiring tactic. It is done to ensure that user base approaches 0 as time tends to infinity.
GNOME 3.4 released Posted Mar 31, 2012 13:34 UTC (Sat) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950) [Link]
That's happening? It shouldn't be done like that. Care to give pointers?
GNOME 3.4 released Posted Mar 31, 2012 19:30 UTC (Sat) by josh (subscriber, #17465) [Link]
Sure. I did a quick search for bugs closed with the OBSOLETE resolution, sorted from newest to oldest, and found several recent examples.
This one demonstrates particular rudeness: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=671744
These just use the stock template I mentioned:
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=672014
Valid reasons to close a bug: "can't reproduce that in the current version", or "the entire subsystem you reported the bug against doesn't exist anymore in the current version, and its replacement doesn't have that problem". Invalid reasons to close a bug: "there's a new version and we don't care about the old one anymore", without actually testing that the new version doesn't have the problem, especially when it turns out that it *does*.
|
|||||||||||||