Topic on Talk:Bug management/How to triage

Qgil-WMF (talkcontribs)

Is it ok for bug triagers to WONTFIX reports? It's not covered in the guide.

For instance, there is an old enhancement request that nobody has been addressing and it is clear nobody has currently plans to address. Is it ok to WONTFIX it?

This post was posted by Qgil-WMF, but signed as Qgil.

MZMcBride (talkcontribs)

No.

MediaWiki serves many masters. Among them is the Wikimedia Foundation. Also among them is a large number of third-party users. Bugzilla covers both groups (and others).

Legitimate bug reports must stay open. They can be marked as enhancement requests as necessary.

AKlapper (WMF) (talkcontribs)
Qgil-WMF (talkcontribs)

Ok, then the right thing is to mark as Lowest those requests that are not incorrect but (to be best of our knowledge) nobody is planning to work on. Understood and thank you.

This post was posted by Qgil-WMF, but signed as Qgil.

AKlapper (WMF) (talkcontribs)

In general I've learned in the MediaWiki community to use WONTFIX way less often (I set WONTFIX more often when I started working in Wikimedia Bugzilla). *If* you can argument that a request is rather "esoteric" and won't be helpful for 99.9% people and will just clutter the interface with another option, personally it would sound close enough for setting WONTFIX, or I might move it to "MediaWiki extensions > Extension requests" with lowest prio.

Valeriej (talkcontribs)

Here are a couple of examples of reports I WONTFIXed, in case it helps. Both of these reports I triaged during a bug day, and I got input from IRC on the proper resolution.

bugzilla:12221 "Without tidy: wrongly closed table cell messes up display completely"

bugzilla:30097 "output of {{#nowiki}} differs from <nowiki>"

AKlapper (WMF) (talkcontribs)

Both look like perfectly fine cases for WONTFIX and I would have done the same. :)

Reply to "WONTFIXing"