On Fri, 2014-07-11 at 00:06 +0100, Karanbir Singh wrote: > On 07/10/2014 09:08 PM, Christoph Galuschka wrote: > > Am 10.07.2014 21:32, schrieb Phil Wyett: > >> Hi all, > >> > >> This morning the discussion of certain statuses for bugs came up in > >> #centos-devel on IRC. > >> > >> Scenario: > >> > >> - Bug reported. For argument an aged bug that is >= 1 point release > >> lower than current point release for the bug. > >> - Bug cannot be reproduced on same major release/current point release. > >> - Reporter asked for feedback - Do they still have the issue? etc. > >> - Feedback does not come in 6 months. > >> > >> At this point it was decided the bug should not be closed, but an > >> appropriate status be assigned. Current statuses do not really cover the > >> above scenario. One suggestion on IRC was a status of: > >> > >> CLOSED_NOFEEDBACK > >> > > That option would be nice. > > > > cheers > > > > in bugs.centos.org there are 2 differnet fields, there is 'status' and > there is 'resolution'. So setting status to closed, regardless of what > the resolution is, will just block it off. > > So, I'm tempted to say we should just setup a new status for 'stale' but > use a better word ? and leave the resolution fields as they are. > > in the example above it would be status: closed, resolution: nofeedback. > > To me, it almost indicates the bug report has no merit anymore ( that > might not be true ). > Alternatives suggestions for word 'stale': - aged - stagnant - cold Regards Phil -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20140711/d8a2aded/attachment-0007.sig>