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
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

Attachments

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