[arch-general] Bad attitude in flyspray again!

[Ng Oon-Ee]

On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 22:49 +0100, Heiko Baums wrote:
> Am Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:59:07 -0600
> schrieb Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com>:
> 
> > Commenting on bugs after they are closed will just annoy the
> > developer. If you have an issue with the fix or something, reopening
> > is the right action. If you have information to add, then add it to
> > the wiki, as THAT is the source of documentation, not flyspray
> 
> But the wiki is for documentations, not for comments on a bug report or
> closure.
> 
> As long as it is possible to reopen a bug commenting on closed bugs is
> not necessary. But there are bug trackers which don't allow reopening
> but writing comments on closed bugs. I think this is a matter of taste.
> 
> What's more important is, that bugs aren't closed at once without
> asking for more details and an answer of the reporter. I guess in most
> cases there's a reason why a bug is reported.
> 
> Greetings,
> Heiko

Considering the trade-offs between:-
1. Allowing re-opening of bugs
2. Allowing comments on closed bugs
3. Bugs shouldn't be closed without a request for details.

I'd think 3 is much more sensible. 1. and 2. would just annoy the
developer assigned to the bug, and in my mind the 'closing' of a bug
should be basically a 'delete thread' operation. I guess it would be
good for a simple system where if a bug cannot be reproduced its
marked/commented as 'cannot reproduce, please provide proof/details' and
placed on a 7-day (arbitrary number) wait, where no more comments would
automatically close the bug.

Not sure if its possible with the backend though...