On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 22:02:48 +0100 Ioannis Aslanidis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think that there is a problem of concept. If a bug is marked > INVALID, it's because it is not a real bug. Marking a bug NOCHANGE or > NOCHANGEREQUIRED, not only overlaps with other resolutions, but fails > to better explain the reason why the bug was closed, whereas INVALID > indeed means that the reported bug is simply not a bug or that it was > reported to the wrong place. I don't think it overlaps, as I described before (whether it does or not comes down to how you define it, of course). As to knowing why the bug was closed, personally I would rather the closure flag indicate the impact on the tree etc - i.e. whether something was changed (FIXED), could have changed but didn't (WONTFIX) or would have changed but couldn't be changed (CANTFIX) or in no way indicated a change (NOCHANGE). Bugs filed in the wrong place should just be re-assigned to the right place, not closed INVALID (at least, not at the point where it's still in the wrong place). > Even though it might look harsh to the user to get such a resolution, > it's also harsh for the developers to have to handle bugs that are > not related to them. > > Still, changing the name from INVALID to NOTABUG + NOTOURBUG does > make sense, as the meaning doesn't get lost. I don't think we need NOTOURBUG. Anything that's a real bug, but not a bug in what we do, can be marked UPSTREAM. > > Kevin F. Quinn wrote: > > On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 19:14:38 +0100 > > Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 18:34:21 +0100 > >> "Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>> People reporting bugs often get annoyed when their bug is marked > >>> INVALID; especially when they're relatively new to the Gentoo > >>> Experience. We've all seen it many times, I'm sure. > >>> > >>> Arguably no bug is invalid in the normal sense - if someone raises > >>> an issue, they have an issue, regardless what we think of it. To > >>> that end I'd like to propose bugzilla be reconfigured to use the > >>> phrase "NOCHANGE" instead of "INVALID". NOCHANGE would indicate > >>> that whatever the original issue, no change is needed on our part > >>> to resolve the issue. > >> _If_ it's changed then please to something else, NOCHANGE would > >> overlap with other values (WONTFIX, CANTFIX, WORKSFORME) and isn't > >> that obvious to me at least. A fake resolution that's mentioned on > >> IRC from time to time is NOTABUG which would fit better here. > > > > Well, I meant for NOCHANGE to be "no change needed", but figured > > NOCHANGEREQUIRED is a bit longwinded. It implies the issue is > > understood, it has been explained to the bug reporter, but requires > > no change to anything: > > > > CANTFIX: the problem exists, but no sensible way to fix it exists > > WONTFIX: the problem exists, but for some reason it won't be fixed > > WORKSFORME: can't replicate > > > > NOCHANGE: no change needed > > > > The problem I have with NOTABUG is pretty much the same problem I > > have with INVALID - it's not as severe, but it still does the same > > thing to the user (i.e. slaps him with a wet fish rather than a > > frozen one). > > -- Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
