--- Jesper Skov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 2002-06-18 at 23:22, Joaquin Cuenca Abela > wrote: > > > > --- Jesper Skov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > confirmed. This value defaults to 0, causing > created > > > bugs to be > > > auto-confirmed. > > > > > > I raised the value to 40. > > > > what? Is it a consiration to prevent new bugs? > > No, the intention is to see new Bugs created as > UNCONFIRMED. > > > IMHO 0 or 1 would be enough. Why a number so > high? > > Because users could then confirm their own Bugs by > casting all their > votes on them.
I seem to remember a discussion some months ago where we resolved to prevent people from voting on their own bugs anyway. What became of this? > However, having just tested it, it does not appear > to make a difference. > Looking at the way BugZilla 2.16rc2 handles Bug > transitions, I think > that's probably OK: we should probably ignore > UNCONFIRMED in the future, > and just use NEW as the new default state (what used > to be SUBMITTED), > and ASSIGNED as the new accept state (what used to > be OPEN). I would like something like this: User reports a bug -> UNCONFIRMED Developer reproduces it -> NEW Developer decides to fix -> ACCEPTED Possibly a shortcut for bugs discovered by a developer to go straight to NEW but that's not important. Andrew. > Jesper > > > > Jesper > ===== http://linguaphile.sourceforge.net http://www.abisource.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com
