This is still the wrong list for this conversation. You have now been told twice.
/a > On Oct 15, 2016, at 17:05, Filipus Klutiero <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 2016-10-08 15:17, Boris Zbarsky wrote: >>> On 10/8/16 11:39 AM, Filipus Klutiero wrote: >>> 2. The ticket in which I reported that bugs.mozilla.org allows >>> tickets to be marked as both WONTFIX and resolved >> >> In Bugzilla, a bug can be in multiple states that indicate what work remains >> to be done on it: UNCONFIRMED, NEW, RESOLVED (and REOPENED, which I think we >> should get rid of). Those correspond to "need to check whether this is a >> real issue", "need to deal with the issue", and "no more work needs to be >> done here". >> >> The RESOLVED state has different resolutions that explain _why_ no more work >> needs to be done. These include FIXED (issue is fixed), INVALID (behavior >> is as intended, e.g. because it's required by a specification), and WONTFIX >> (acknowledgement that this is an issue, but an explicit decision that the >> behavior won't be changed nevertheless, typically with the reasons why given >> when the resolution is set to WONTFIX). > > A ticket should not be marked INVALID simply because the issue reported is > required by a specification. A ticket should not be marked as invalid unless > the report is incorrect, or unless it does not report an issue in the > software against which it was filed. > >> >> Given that, having something both "RESOLVED" and "WONTFIX" is everything >> working as-designed: there is no more work to be done, because an explicit >> decision has been made to not change the behavior, even though the behavior >> is indeed wrong in some way. > > The concrete meaning of "WONTFIX" is that all of the product's current > developers have chosen not to work on the issue. There *is* more work to be > done on a "WONTFIX" issue, since a "WONTFIX" issue is not resolved. > >> [...] >> >> You seem to be using a different definition of the word "resolved" than that >> used in the Bugzilla UI and insisting that everyone else use the same >> definition as you, even after it was explained to you what the specific >> status "RESOLVED" means in terms of the Bugzilla workflow. That's not very >> constructive, unfortunately... > > A group of people sharing a system must agree on the definition of its > symbols. We cannot have a person consider that term foo means x, and another > consider that it means y if x and y can be contrary. We must use common > definitions of statuses. If I am searching a persisting issue in the ITS > assuming that status RESOLVED means the issue is resolved, but that the > corresponding report was marked as RESOLVED by someone who used an > alternative definition which considers some unresolved issues "RESOLVED", > there is little chance for me to find the ticket. Therefore, I do think it is > constructive to ask that alternative definitions are prevented as much as > possible. > > The only place where it would have been "explained" to me what the "RESOLVED" > status means is in ticket #1285748: > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1285748 > > In comment #7, Byron Jones claimed "RESOLVED" would mean "not further action > will be taken here"[sic], specifying in comment #9 that this definition would > be specific to computer science. As dictionaries do not acknowledge such a > definition, I rejected that in comment #10, and no one has replied to that so > far. > > Dylan Hardison then suggested in comment #11 that "RESOLVED" would mean > "Decide firmly on a course of action". Before bothering to point out that > this adjective would apply to humans, not to tickets, I challenged Dylan in > comment #13 to start by demonstrating that this definition would explain > using "RESOLVED" for the ticket where his comment was made, asking what would > be that hypothetical course of action. > > Months later, there is still no answer to the challenges on both of these > suggestions. Considering that, and that these suggestions conflict with the > intuitive interpretation, I consider these suggestions wrong, as I explained > in ticket #1288913 comment #6. > > Since BMO has been in place for more than a decade, I cannot believe some are > suggesting that issue status "RESOLVED" would not indicate a resolved issue. > However, since you are the third person I see proposing an alternative > definition in a few months, and since the situation appears imperfect as you > point out with the case of "REOPENED", I just went to BMO and searched for a > bug about an eventual issue on the definition of "RESOLVED". There is no such > report against either BMO or Bugzilla. > > In terms of constructiveness, if the Status field is so bad that some > contributor is convinced that "RESOLVED" can mean something different that > the expected meaning, rather than proposing one more twisted definition, then > he should: > > 1. Fix the issue > 2. Until item 1 is completed, refrain from flagging reports of its > consequences as invalid even when these reports disagree with his own > interpretation. > > [...] > > -- > Filipus Klutiero > http://www.philippecloutier.com > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
