[arch-general] Bad attitude in flyspray again!

[Aaron Griffin]

2010/3/11 Ng Oon-Ee <ngoonee at gmail.com>:
> 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...

This sounds like throwing technology at a problem that basically boils
down to a communication issue.

Without specific examples, this isn't going to go anywhere, really.

Would someone mind linking to the bugs in question?