| 1 |
On 16/06/16 14:22, Andrew Savchenko wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:26:47 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Hello, everyone. |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> Here's my second RFC wrt bugs.gentoo.org redesign. |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> Right now we have separate UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED states for bugs. |
| 8 |
>> However, we use the two scarcely. I believe it would be beneficial to |
| 9 |
>> replace the two with a single NEW state. |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> Rationale: |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> 1. Most of developers don't care about the two states, and which one |
| 14 |
>> bugs are in. |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> 2. All bugs need to be handled the same, whether they were marked as |
| 17 |
>> confirmed or not. |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
>> 3. We stage bugs through bug-wranglers@ which kinda has a similar |
| 20 |
>> purpose to the UNCONFIRMED state in other Bugzillas. |
| 21 |
>> |
| 22 |
>> 4. Some people who actually care about the two states change them, |
| 23 |
>> causing unnecessary bugspam. |
| 24 |
>> |
| 25 |
>> 5. Some users who think that the state matters get furious about bugs |
| 26 |
>> staying in UNCONFIRMED for long. |
| 27 |
>> |
| 28 |
>> Your thoughts? |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> CONFIRMED state is useful, it means that dev or powerful user |
| 31 |
> confirmed this bug and gives it more value. I'd like to keep it. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> Best regards, |
| 34 |
> Andrew Savchenko |
| 35 |
I think CONFIRMED is useful too, particularly if it shows that the |
| 36 |
problem is easily reproducible (ie. either a wrangler/dev/proxy has |
| 37 |
actually run the sequence of command as per report, and has replicated |
| 38 |
the issue). |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
ASSIGNED should be the 'default' phase for a bug, after is has been |
| 41 |
wrangled. See https://www.bugzilla.org/docs/3.6/en/html/lifecycle.html |
| 42 |
for some useful (but not all necessary) states. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
I suggest an approximate workflow of NEW->ASSIGNED->CONFIRMED->IN |
| 45 |
PROGRESS->RESOLVED/CLOSED/etc. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
MJE |
Archives