alt Hacker NewsWhat if no devs even tried to reproduce it, and they have no reason to believe they've fixed the bug with any other changes?
That seems to be the case described in the article. In such a situation, I think it's dishonest to ask the reporter to expend even more effort when you've spent zero. Just close it if you don't want to do it, you don't have to be a jerk to your customers, too, by sending them off on a wild goose chase.
Otherwise, why not ask the reporter to reproduce the issue every single day until you choose to fix it in some unknown point in the future, and if they miss a day, it gets closed? That seems just as arbitrary.
Replies
Most of the time there is some reason to believe that the bug could be fixed though, i.e. there were non-trivial code changes around that area.
> Otherwise, why not ask the reporter to reproduce the issue every single day until you choose to fix it in some unknown point in the future, and if they miss a day, it gets closed? That seems just as arbitrary.
Truenas literally takes this approach to bugs.
Right. The problem isn’t closing the ticket, it’s pretending more work is happening than actually is.
“Needs verification” is fine if someone has actually tried to reproduce it. Otherwise it’s just a nicer way of saying “we’re not going to look at this.”