After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 590840 - [Stock answers extension] Add a sentence to suggest reporters to verify the bugs
[Stock answers extension] Add a sentence to suggest reporters to verify the bugs
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Product: bugzilla.gnome.org
Classification: Infrastructure
Component: general
unspecified
Other All
: Low enhancement
: Bugzilla 4.4
Assigned To: Bugzilla Maintainers
Bugzilla Maintainers
: 744207 (view as bug list)
Depends on: 594259
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2009-08-05 12:04 UTC by Javier Jardón (IRC: jjardon)
Modified: 2015-02-24 20:11 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---


Attachments
Add a sentence to suggest reporters to verify the bugs (4.78 KB, patch)
2009-08-05 12:09 UTC, Javier Jardón (IRC: jjardon)
rejected Details | Review

Description Javier Jardón (IRC: jjardon) 2009-08-05 12:04:02 UTC
Adding additional sentence to stock answers to verify fixed bugs as discussed here: http://live.gnome.org/Bugsquad/Meetings/20090903#head-3a68ed263596276c5344af04e6c8e26bb222653d
Comment 1 Javier Jardón (IRC: jjardon) 2009-08-05 12:09:47 UTC
Created attachment 139935 [details] [review]
Add a sentence to suggest reporters to verify the bugs
Comment 2 Christian Kirbach 2009-08-08 00:02:54 UTC
Patch looks good to me.

OLAV?
Comment 3 Leo Jackson 2009-08-09 21:02:00 UTC
Javier,

The init open bug statement leads to and Empty page.

I like the new stock responses great job.

lajjr
Comment 4 Javier Jardón (IRC: jjardon) 2009-08-09 21:14:55 UTC
Hello Leo,

yes, the page has moved to http://live.gnome.org/Bugsquad/Meetings/20090803#head-612aa49b0ca19b71dac7cd0b2e47bb2271db97f5

Thank you for ping me!
Comment 5 Olav Vitters 2009-08-10 06:59:39 UTC
I wonder how much sense it is to apply these. This as we're upgrading in less than a wekk.
Comment 6 Javier Jardón (IRC: jjardon) 2009-08-10 21:28:10 UTC
Can anyone commit this? (I don't have commit permissions)
Comment 7 André Klapper 2009-08-11 10:10:34 UTC
No, it does not make sense at all currently. See comment 5.
Comment 8 Tobias Mueller 2009-09-02 02:39:45 UTC
So, we do have a new Bugzilla. Any chance we can have a new patch? :)
Comment 9 Javier Jardón (IRC: jjardon) 2009-09-02 02:49:06 UTC
(In reply to comment #8)
> So, we do have a new Bugzilla. Any chance we can have a new patch? :)

Sure, Where is the code of the new Bugzilla?
Comment 10 Tobias Mueller 2010-08-07 00:45:10 UTC
Javier: On Launchpad: https://launchpad.net/bugzilla.gnome.org
Comment 11 André Klapper 2015-01-04 14:51:42 UTC
Comment on attachment 139935 [details] [review]
Add a sentence to suggest reporters to verify the bugs

Code will soon be under bugzilla-gnome-org-extensions/template/en/default/hook/bug/edit-after_comment_textarea.html.tmpl in GNOME Git instead of template/en/default/bug/edit.html.tmpl hence marking as needs-work - should be applied against new location.

Further proposals regarding content:
* by marking this report => by setting the status of this report
* re-open => reopen; plus ask reporter to mention her/his new version?
Comment 12 André Klapper 2015-01-04 22:33:50 UTC
This will be fixed once we upgrade to Bugzilla 4.4:

https://git.gnome.org/browse/bugzilla-gnome-org-extensions/commit/?id=9a961c932d849906086dbe8234d8319037039d93
Comment 14 André Klapper 2015-02-10 12:04:18 UTC
*** Bug 744207 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 15 Morten Welinder 2015-02-10 12:40:47 UTC
A sentence requesting verification got added.

I consider that harmful.

1. As a maintainer, I really don't want to be spammed with random
   verifications.  For the few I would like verification, I would
   much rather ask for it explicitly.

   There's a ~1 year delay involved, at best, when distributions are
   involved.  In almost all cases the bug will be long forgotten by
   whoever fixed it and I don't see anyone spending time reinvestigating
   a bug.

2. I am always wary of asking reporters to do pointless work.
   This work is pointless unless someone is going to act on it.
   I don't see who would do that.

Who is this supposed to benefit?  I note that the link allegedly pointing
to a discussion about this points to no such thing.

Can this be reverted or, alternatively, can module maintainers opt out?
Comment 16 Morten Welinder 2015-02-17 16:11:00 UTC
It looks like the git links here are dead too.

Someone who thought this was a reasonable idea really needs to step
forward.
Comment 17 André Klapper 2015-02-17 16:50:11 UTC
Git link is now https://git.gnome.org/browse/bugzilla-gnome-org-customizations/commit/?id=c7dc7ea1e1ad7dfc76d819ff67622803d8350677

I put the patch in, Javier proposed it.

And I think I slightly tend towards reverting those changes but would like to have Javier's input.
Comment 18 Javier Jardón (IRC: jjardon) 2015-02-18 14:33:25 UTC
Yeah, I'd be ok with the revertion: AFAIK, no project is using the VERIFIED status anyway.
Actually, I'd suggest to remove the VERIFIED status from our GNOME bugzilla instance.