| 1 |
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:22:32 +0300 |
| 2 |
Andrew Savchenko <bircoph@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:26:47 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Hello, everyone. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > Here's my second RFC wrt bugs.gentoo.org redesign. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > Right now we have separate UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED states for bugs. |
| 10 |
> > However, we use the two scarcely. I believe it would be beneficial to |
| 11 |
> > replace the two with a single NEW state. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > Rationale: |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > 1. Most of developers don't care about the two states, and which one |
| 16 |
> > bugs are in. |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> > 2. All bugs need to be handled the same, whether they were marked as |
| 19 |
> > confirmed or not. |
| 20 |
> > |
| 21 |
> > 3. We stage bugs through bug-wranglers@ which kinda has a similar |
| 22 |
> > purpose to the UNCONFIRMED state in other Bugzillas. |
| 23 |
> > |
| 24 |
> > 4. Some people who actually care about the two states change them, |
| 25 |
> > causing unnecessary bugspam. |
| 26 |
> > |
| 27 |
> > 5. Some users who think that the state matters get furious about bugs |
| 28 |
> > staying in UNCONFIRMED for long. |
| 29 |
> > |
| 30 |
> > Your thoughts? |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> CONFIRMED state is useful, it means that dev or powerful user |
| 33 |
> confirmed this bug and gives it more value. I'd like to keep it. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Are you saying that bugs that haven't been marked as CONFIRMED have |
| 36 |
less value? Maybe they don't have to be handled at all, unless someone |
| 37 |
you consider more worthy confirms them? |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
Best regards, |
| 41 |
Michał Górny |
| 42 |
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/> |
Archives