On 16/06/16 14:22, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:26:47 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: >> Hello, everyone. >> >> Here's my second RFC wrt bugs.gentoo.org redesign. >> >> Right now we have separate UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED states for bugs. >> However, we use the two scarcely. I believe it would be beneficial to >> replace the two with a single NEW state. >> >> Rationale: >> >> 1. Most of developers don't care about the two states, and which one >> bugs are in. >> >> 2. All bugs need to be handled the same, whether they were marked as >> confirmed or not. >> >> 3. We stage bugs through bug-wranglers@ which kinda has a similar >> purpose to the UNCONFIRMED state in other Bugzillas. >> >> 4. Some people who actually care about the two states change them, >> causing unnecessary bugspam. >> >> 5. Some users who think that the state matters get furious about bugs >> staying in UNCONFIRMED for long. >> >> Your thoughts? > > CONFIRMED state is useful, it means that dev or powerful user > confirmed this bug and gives it more value. I'd like to keep it. > > Best regards, > Andrew Savchenko I think CONFIRMED is useful too, particularly if it shows that the problem is easily reproducible (ie. either a wrangler/dev/proxy has actually run the sequence of command as per report, and has replicated the issue).
ASSIGNED should be the 'default' phase for a bug, after is has been wrangled. See https://www.bugzilla.org/docs/3.6/en/html/lifecycle.html for some useful (but not all necessary) states. I suggest an approximate workflow of NEW->ASSIGNED->CONFIRMED->IN PROGRESS->RESOLVED/CLOSED/etc. MJE
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
