On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:47:46 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:22:32 +0300 > Andrew Savchenko <birc...@gentoo.org> 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. > > Are you saying that bugs that haven't been marked as CONFIRMED have > less value? Maybe they don't have to be handled at all, unless someone > you consider more worthy confirms them? Please don't exaggerate my words. "More value" doesn't imply that other bugs have no value. Under some conditions it means order of preference; e.g. if I'm not able to handle all bugs in a timeslot I have, but I am able to fix something, I may prefer confirmed bugs over unconfirmed ones, as bugs which are easier to reproduce and are likely to affect more users.
P.S. Please don't CC me when replying to my e-mails on the list, since I'm already subscribed to the list. Best regards, Andrew Savchenko
pgpN82PAIPuK7.pgp
Description: PGP signature
