Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Merging UNCONFIRMED & CONFIRMED into NEW

[Andrew Savchenko]

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:47:46 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:22:32 +0300
> Andrew Savchenko <bircoph@g.o> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:26:47 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
> > > Hello, everyone.
> > >
> > > Here's my second RFC wrt bugs.gentoo.org redesign.
> > >
> > > Right now we have separate UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED states for bugs.
> > > However, we use the two scarcely. I believe it would be beneficial to
> > > replace the two with a single NEW state.
> > >
> > > Rationale:
> > >
> > > 1. Most of developers don't care about the two states, and which one
> > > bugs are in.
> > >
> > > 2. All bugs need to be handled the same, whether they were marked as
> > > confirmed or not.
> > >
> > > 3. We stage bugs through bug-wranglers@ which kinda has a similar
> > > purpose to the UNCONFIRMED state in other Bugzillas.
> > >
> > > 4. Some people who actually care about the two states change them,
> > > causing unnecessary bugspam.
> > >
> > > 5. Some users who think that the state matters get furious about bugs
> > > staying in UNCONFIRMED for long.
> > >
> > > Your thoughts?
> >
> > CONFIRMED state is useful, it means that dev or powerful user
> > confirmed this bug and gives it more value. I'd like to keep it.
>
> Are you saying that bugs that haven't been marked as CONFIRMED have
> less value? Maybe they don't have to be handled at all, unless someone
> you consider more worthy confirms them?
 
Please don't exaggerate my words. "More value" doesn't imply that
other bugs have no value. Under some conditions it means order
of preference; e.g. if I'm not able to handle all bugs in a
timeslot I have, but I am able to fix something, I may prefer
confirmed bugs over unconfirmed ones, as bugs which are easier to
reproduce and are likely to affect more users.

P.S. Please don't CC me when replying to my e-mails on the list,
since I'm already subscribed to the list.

Best regards,
Andrew Savchenko