This is still the wrong list for this conversation. You have now been
told twice.


> On Oct 15, 2016, at 17:05, Filipus Klutiero <> 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 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: 
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
governance mailing list

Reply via email to