Gerald Combs wrote:
On 11/30/12 1:56 PM, Evan Huus wrote:
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Guy Harris <guy@xxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:guy@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
On Nov 30, 2012, at 1:08 PM, Evan Huus <eapache@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:eapache@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> I would think so. It's bothered me for a while that we didn't have
a way to distinguish between "brand new, nobody has looked at it
yet" bugs and "solution identified, but nobody wants to work on it"
bugs.
CONFIRMED is "somebody's looked at it and determined that it's
really a bug (as opposed to, for example, that's what it's supposed
to do)"; IN_PROGRESS is "solution identified and somebody's working
on it". There's no separate "solution identified, but nobody wants
to work on it", or even "yes, it's a bug, but we haven't figured out
the cause yet" state; CONFIRMED covers those two.
Yes, this is more precise than my definition. Launchpad provides TRIAGED
which is "confirmed with enough information to fix, but nobody is
working on it yet", but I haven't found it all that useful a state.
> Separating our current NEW bugs into either UNCONFIRMED or
CONFIRMED states seems like the right way to do that.
>
> While on the topic, I'd also love an "INCOMPLETE" state like
Launchpad (for bugs that are waiting on the submitter for more
information -- we seem to have a fair number of those), but I
suppose one thing at a time :)
Yes - a bug database I've worked with a state like that.
It also had resolutions along the lines of
NOTABUG - "that's what the software's supposed to do";
NOTOURBUG - "it's a bug in some other software that we use
(and that we can't or shouldn't work around)"
These would be nice.
I updated Bugzilla's workflow earlier today. I added and INCOMPLETE
state and enabled UNCONFIRMED so we now have the following states:
UNCONFIRMED
New bugs are showing up in the CONFIRMED state. Shouldn't they be
UNCONFIRMED?
