Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla - New Default Status Workflow
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 19:43:18
Message-Id: 20110310204229.314f784d@epia.jer-c2.orkz.net
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla - New Default Status Workflow by Mike Gilbert
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 11:04:19 -0500
Mike Gilbert <floppymaster@×××××.com> wrote:

> If we were to switch to the new workflow, it probably would make sense > to switch the default new bug status to UNCONFIRMED. I'm not sure how > we would handle the existing bugs in NEW status.
I agree that new should now automatically be set to UNCONFIRMED when they are not assigned yet (i.e. have been automatically assigned to bug-wranglers) but to CONFIRMED when they are being assigned directly to their respective maintainers. For existing bugs, then, NEW bugs should be changed to UNCONFIRMED when they are assigned to bug-wranglers, and to CONFIRMED when they have already been assigned to their maintainers (irrespective of whether they are actually confirmed or not or whether they are deemed to be actual bugs). Status = NEW && Assignee = bug-wranglers -> Status = UNCONFIRMED Status = NEW && Assignee = [maintainer] -> Status = CONFIRMED
> Here are the workflow diagrams for our old Bugzilla and the new one. I > find pictures are a bit easier to follow.
Thanks, those really helped. (The only problem I have with the new workflow is that bugs assigned to bug-wranglers can usually be dealt with more quickly when it is obvious that new information has been added, which is the case when a bug has been closed as RESOLVED, NEEDINFO, after which reopening it will set it to REOPENED. If we're going to lose that, then the b-w assigned list loses some definition. But maybe bugzilla 4's support of the Changed column can help there.) jer

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla - New Default Status Workflow "Amadeusz Żołnowski" <aidecoe@g.o>