Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Bugzilla - New Default Status Workflow
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 04:31:06
Message-Id: 20110310223555.11bc2947@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla - New Default Status Workflow by Jeroen Roovers
On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 04:52:19 +0100
Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o> wrote:

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

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature