On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 22:24 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote: > Le mardi 10 août 2010, à 15:42 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod a écrit : > > I know what I'm *supposed* to do. What I'm saying is that given what people > > *actually* do, I think it makes sense to remove UNCONFIRMED. > > Agree. I think most developers just don't care about UNCONFIRMED vs NEW. > Users do care and don't understand while bugs stay UNCONFIRMED, so the > current situation just leads to some confusion.
Might I suggest removing UNCONFIRMED and make NEW the initial state for all bugs (it's always seemed a bit backwards to me to transition a new bug -into- NEW), but also add a new state called TRIAGED. TRIAGED means what you think: a maintainer or bugmaster has looked at the bug, adjusted fields, checked for duplicates, added meta-data to help track it, CC'ed the appropriate maintainers, etc. Projects can choose to use or ignore TRIAGED. Smaller projects likely don't need it. But larger projects with a steady influx of new bugs (Evolution, Nautilus, GIMP, etc.) may find value in it. _______________________________________________ gnome-infrastructure mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-infrastructure
