Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Panagiotis Christopoulos <pchrist@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla - New Default Status Workflow
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 15:09:52
Message-Id: 20110428150611.GA16153@Vereniki.lan
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla - New Default Status Workflow by Christian Ruppert
On 16:07 Thu 28 Apr     , Christian Ruppert wrote:

Ok, so, we should choose one of two ways:
1. The old one [1]
2. The new one [2]

From my point of view, the problem currently is that the ways above are
mixed. A user files a bug. The bug has UNCONFIRMED status. Then, someone
with editbugs priveleges tries to assign the bug. He has the NEW, ASSIGNED
and RESOLVED options to change its status. A bug is assigned to a team/
maintainter. The maintainer can change its status from NEW to ASSIGNED
or RESOLVED. The maintainer marks the bug as RESOLVED. He can change
that status again to UNCONFIRMED, REOPENED, VERIFIED or CLOSED. Even the
RESOLVED <something> can be FIXED, INVALID, WONTFIX, DUPLICATE,
WORKSFORME, CANTFIX, NEEDINFO, TEST-REQUEST, UPSTREAM, OBSOLETE. Someone
would say that CANTFIX and UPSTREAM could be merged. The same with
WONTFIX and OBSOLETE (it's a theory, I don't say we should do it).
> ... > REOPENED gone, > CLOSED gone. VERIFIED will be added.
What is the meaning of VERIFIED? (I also never understood the meaning of the old CLOSED).
> > So I think we should convert...
I think we should convert to the new [2] model too. The only reason I asked about the whole "workflow thing" on irc was because sometimes I get confused by all these options. I believe we should simplify them and update the bug-wranglers guide accordingly. [1] http://www.bugzilla.org/docs/3.6/en/html/lifecycle.html [2] http://www.bugzilla.org/docs/4.0/en/html/lifecycle.html ps: To everyone who helped with the upgrade of bugzie: Thanks guys! I can understand it wasn't easy. -- Panagiotis Christopoulos ( pchrist ) ( Gentoo Lisp Project )

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla - New Default Status Workflow Peter Volkov <pva@g.o>