Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Removing the distinction between UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED bugs

[Michał Górny]

On Sat, 2022-12-03 at 13:10 +0100, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> On 03/12/2022 12.34, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Sat, 2022-12-03 at 11:42 +0100, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> > > On 03/12/2022 08.09, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to propose replacing the current UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED bug
> > > > states with a simple NEW state.  Why?
> > > >
> > > > 1. Only a handful of developers actually uses these two statuses
> > > > in a meaningful way.
> > > >
> > > > 2. Some users are confused and demotivated by having their bugs stay
> > > > UNCONFIRMED for a long time.
> > >
> > > While I do not strictly oppose that change, I like the UNCONFIRMED /
> > > CONFIRMED states.
> > >
> > > I don't know how 1. is an argument for removing it. Quite the contrary,
> > > the statement itself says that the feature is used. Furthermore, it is
> > > not my observation that only a handful of developers use it. Most open
> > > bugs are in the CONF state [1], so I would conclude that most use the
> > > feature. Of course, that depends on your definition of "used in a
> > > meaningful way". For me, CONFIRMED was always about someone, usually a
> > > -dev, acknowledging that the bug reports a valid issue that needs to be
> > > addressed (either by Gentoo or upstream). Is that using it in a
> > > meaningful way?
> >
> > Does that imply that bugs that are UNCONFIRMED are not worth our effort?
>
> No, not all. Could you elaborate how you derive this implication?
>
> I had always assumed that UNCONFIRMED means that nobody (as in, no dev)
> looked at the issue report and vetted its validity. Nothing more,
> nothing less.
>

I'm trying to understand what actual value this has.  Unless it's data
for the sake of having data.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny