NEEDINFO about NEEDINFO

[Derek Atkins]

Chris Shoemaker <c.shoemaker at cox.net> writes:

>   3a) The implication is that bugs currently marked NEEDINFO need to
> be re-evaluated for usefulness and that the bar for closing them is
> not necessarily any lower than for UNCONFIRMED bugs.  But, in the
> future, NEEDINFO would mean that the bug has already been deemed
> useless without more info.

I personally use NEEDINFO for bugs that aren't necessarily useless,
but that I don't want to continually look at because I know I'm
waiting for more info.  For example, I may be waiting for a user to
test a fix, but I don't want to mark the bug as CLOSED or FIXED until
I get the verification.  Yet I don't want to keep it as NEW or
ASSIGNED, either, because I really am waiting for information from the
user.

I /do/ agree that putting a bug into NEEDINFO is an implicit contract
to watch the bug for changes and make sure it gets re-opened or closed
when more info arrives.  But I don't want to make NEEDINFO
/necessarily/ imply "this bug can be closed if we get no response from
the user".

> What do you all think?
>
> -chris

-derek

-- 
       Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory
       Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board  (SIPB)
       URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/    PP-ASEL-IA     N1NWH
       warlord at MIT.EDU                        PGP key available