- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 06 May 2010 22:02:01 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9284 --- Comment #6 from Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> 2010-05-06 22:02:00 --- (In reply to comment #5) > I agree with Henri's suggestion about letting other people than the editor > resolve bugs as WORKSFORME. I also agree that it might be useful to have a > variant of the editor's response boilerplate/template for this case, but I > don't think it's absolutely necessary. > > Other than that, I think the proposed description of the INVALID state might be > too restrictive. I think in practice we are not just using it for bugs that are > obvious junk or spam, but also for bugs that are raised legitimately but which > are clearly based on the commenter having misread/misunderstood the spec. I think that should be a WORKSFORME, not INVALID (i.e. the spec doesn't actually have the stated bug). I would prefer we reserve INVALID for bugs that don't even state an issue. It also seems like this is the kind of situation that will require a rationale. How else can we tell if the originator agrees that they just misread the spec? -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 6 May 2010 22:02:02 UTC