1 |
On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 04:52:19 +0100 |
2 |
Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 21:06:54 +0100 |
5 |
> Amadeusz Żołnowski <aidecoe@g.o> wrote: |
6 |
> |
7 |
> > > Status = NEW && Assignee = bug-wranglers -> Status = UNCONFIRMED |
8 |
> > > Status = NEW && Assignee = [maintainer] -> Status = CONFIRMED |
9 |
> > |
10 |
> > Who confirms the bug? I would expect that CONFIRMED is set by the |
11 |
> > package maintainer and the one who assigns bugs leaves the status. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> I was referring to existing bug reports, not new ones. New ones should |
14 |
> come in as UNCONFIRMED and would be changed to CONFIRMED when assigned |
15 |
> - bug wrangling does have this element of validation, you know. |
16 |
> Apparently when maintainers accept the bug, it changes to IN PROGRESS, |
17 |
> and when [s]he doesn't it should be resolved as invalid or duplicate |
18 |
> or whatever, but heck, maybe the flow chart should speak for itself. |
19 |
|
20 |
Bug wranglers should only mark bugs CONFIRMED if they can personally |
21 |
reproduce them. If no one has produced the bug other than the original |
22 |
poster then that's the very definition of UNCONFIRMED. |
23 |
|
24 |
Or maybe you're thinking CONFIRMED as in "I confirm this is a bug report and |
25 |
not a lunch order"? |
26 |
|
27 |
|
28 |
-- |
29 |
fonts, gcc-porting, it makes no sense how it makes no sense |
30 |
toolchain, wxwidgets but i'll take it free anytime |
31 |
@ gentoo.org EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 |