Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: 208.113.200.5 is neither permitted
 nor denied by domain of pescetti@openoffice.org)
Message-ID: <4EF8DD61.7080504@openoffice.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 21:47:29 +0100
From: Andrea Pescetti <pescetti@openoffice.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.24) Gecko/20111108 Fedora/3.1.16-1.fc14 Thunderbird/3.1.16
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Accepting WhiteLabel Office Bug Reports?
References: <009d01ccc409$d25bc0c0$77134240$@acm.org>
In-Reply-To: <009d01ccc409$d25bc0c0$77134240$@acm.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> I notice that a bugzilla report on WhiteLabel Office 3.3.1 was received and
> closed as invalid: <https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118695>.
> ... Can it be found in our hearts to accepts these and be gentler with them and
> the users who go to the trouble to submit them?

WhiteLabel Office 3.3.1 does not exist. A release candidate is by no 
means a final release and it is only meant for testing; this is another 
of the details that the TeamOpenOffice.org press release did not stress 
adequately.

> Clearly, there are TOO folks who could handle them if they are WLO-only
> defects.

Sure, but release candidates should be announced properly (i.e., not 
with a widely circulated press release).

My proposal would be to add a keyword named "external" to BugZilla and 
tag all related reports with it, and then at due time close all open 
issues with that keyword as "Invalid" (if indeed White Label Office 
3.3.1 is released as a separate product) or deal with them (if something 
special happens and White Label Office 3.3.1 is released with a proper 
name, proper QA and proper collaboration).

Regards,
   Andrea.