Bugzappers EOL process and abrt bug reporters being flagged with needinfo before bugs are closed?

[Alexander Kurtakov]

On 09:46:18 pm Monday, December 06, 2010 Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
> On 12/06/2010 06:11 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > They don't have to. If you filed a bug that you can't follow up on any
> > more, in the general case, you can just say so, and close it. In this
> > case, you don't have to lift a finger, because the bug will get
> > automatically closed soon anyway. That's what the needinfo is telling
> > you.
> 
> Changing bug status to NEEDINFO from reporter should only be done when
> information contained within the bug is incomplete, and additional
> information from the original submitter is required to confirm the bug
> so could the bug zappers please stop misusing the NEEDINFO flag like
> this and just comment whatever information they want the reporter to
> know on the bug report as it should be...

But this is exactly what we need to be tested - whether the bug is still 
present with the latest Fedora release. 
 "If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it 
against a later version of Fedora please change the 'version' of this 
bug to the applicable version."
Usually there are more than plenty of changes in a Fedora release to make the 
bug needs retesting. Even if only a few of the underlying libraries have 
changed this may change the info provided so drammatically that the maintainer 
will be able to fix it or get better understanding of the problem. Not to 
mention that a big number of the bugs are reproducible only in certain 
circumstances (given dependencies installed, using some feature in a very 
specific manner or specific services) resulting in maintainer not being able to 
reproduce. 
Needinfo flag is used absolutely on purpose because we need someone to verify 
the bug is still reproducible. In my book the maintainer must fix the bug but 
the reporter must test when there are enough changes that the bug may be 
closed and new Fedora release (actually 2 of them) is more than enough of a 
reason that the bug may have changed it's status.

Alex


> 
> Haven't you abused and twisted Bugzilla term and usage enough already?
> 
> JBG
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/attachments/20101206/8a49ada1/attachment-0001.html