On Jan 12, 2007, at 3:33 AM, Joe Orton wrote:
Yes, Closed should be the final resting place for bug reports, for good or for bad.What is the difference between a "RESOLVED" bug and a "CLOSED" one? Is it not possible to re-open/add comments to CLOSED reports or something?It's always seemed like a meaningless distinction to me, going through marking stuff CLOSED seems like a spam generation exercise.
For me, linguistically, I mean "closed" as opposed to "open". If nothing else it just sounds nicer. Closure is good.
However, the meaning of any bug state is determined by the people who work with it: If "Resolved" is defined as the final resting place for bugs, then that is what it is.
For httpd-2, we have 1841 closed bugs, and 975 lingering in 'Resolved'. We clearly have different people following different workflows. I browsed a couple of the highest numbered 'Closed' bugs, and some were closed by the reporter after we found them Resolved, Invalid.
To me, 'Resolved' has the connotation that it hasn't stopped twitching yet, and could still come back to life. Once 'Closed', it should stay dead.
It really comes down to how we define things. The fact that Bugzilla has a certain state or feature doesn't mean that we have to use it... we don't use 'Unconfirmed' either, do we?
As for the spam problem, Bugzilla does not send spam. If a user does not want to receive certain Bugzilla messages, they have fine-grained control over their e-mail preferences.
What I'm most unhappy about is that we have 783 bugs in New, Assigned, Reopened, NeedInfo... that seems like quite a lot. Perhaps we need to turn on voting and start using 'Unconfirmed' as initial state?
S. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.temme.net/sander/ PGP FP: 51B4 8727 466A 0BC3 69F4 B7B8 B2BE BC40 1529 24AF
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
