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
