https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46218
Olivier F. R. Dierick o.dierick@piezo-forte.be changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|ABANDONED |WORKSFORME
--- Comment #10 from Olivier F. R. Dierick o.dierick@piezo-forte.be --- (In reply to Zebediah Figura from comment #8)
I think ABANDONED is more appropriate here.
Not wanting to nitpick but I think WORKSFORME is more appropriate, because the bug disappeared for me and we have no clues what may have caused it. Comment 7 shows that other people still have the issue and the bug is taken care of, so it's not ABANDONED.
ABANDONED: "No one took care of the bug for a long time and the reporter didn't reply to information requests. If more information appears later, the bug can be reopened."
WORKSFORME: "All attempts at reproducing this bug were futile, and reading the code produces no clues as to why the described behavior would occur. If more information appears later, the bug can be reopened."
(In reply to Zebediah Figura from comment #9)
Unfortunately this means that we are going to lose a test case for a bisected regression. Sadly I am not familiar with the patch set in question, but so as to at least get some information, can someone who can still reproduce the bug please attach a trace with +server,+file,+ntdll,+advapi?
Sound like you need info to get clues "as to why the described behavior would occur" → WORKSFORME unless someone can reproduce.