This is still the wrong list for this conversation. You have now been
> On Oct 15, 2016, at 17:05, Filipus Klutiero <chea...@gmail.com> 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
> The only place where it would have been "explained" to me what the "RESOLVED"
> status means is in ticket #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
> 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
> Filipus Klutiero
> governance mailing list
governance mailing list