| 1 |
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 19:14:38 +0100 |
| 2 |
Marius Mauch <genone@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 18:34:21 +0100 |
| 5 |
> "Kevin F. Quinn" <kevquinn@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> > People reporting bugs often get annoyed when their bug is marked |
| 8 |
> > INVALID; especially when they're relatively new to the Gentoo |
| 9 |
> > Experience. We've all seen it many times, I'm sure. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > Arguably no bug is invalid in the normal sense - if someone raises |
| 12 |
> > an issue, they have an issue, regardless what we think of it. To |
| 13 |
> > that end I'd like to propose bugzilla be reconfigured to use the |
| 14 |
> > phrase "NOCHANGE" instead of "INVALID". NOCHANGE would indicate |
| 15 |
> > that whatever the original issue, no change is needed on our part to |
| 16 |
> > resolve the issue. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> _If_ it's changed then please to something else, NOCHANGE would |
| 19 |
> overlap with other values (WONTFIX, CANTFIX, WORKSFORME) and isn't |
| 20 |
> that obvious to me at least. A fake resolution that's mentioned on |
| 21 |
> IRC from time to time is NOTABUG which would fit better here. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Well, I meant for NOCHANGE to be "no change needed", but figured |
| 24 |
NOCHANGEREQUIRED is a bit longwinded. It implies the issue is |
| 25 |
understood, it has been explained to the bug reporter, but requires no |
| 26 |
change to anything: |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
CANTFIX: the problem exists, but no sensible way to fix it exists |
| 29 |
WONTFIX: the problem exists, but for some reason it won't be fixed |
| 30 |
WORKSFORME: can't replicate |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
NOCHANGE: no change needed |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
The problem I have with NOTABUG is pretty much the same problem I have |
| 35 |
with INVALID - it's not as severe, but it still does the same thing to |
| 36 |
the user (i.e. slaps him with a wet fish rather than a frozen one). |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
Kevin F. Quinn |
Archives