On Mon, 12 Dec 2016, Luigi Toscano wrote: > You could intercept them by filtering the content of the X-Bugzilla-Flags: > header.
Okay. > It may not bring immediate benefits for everyone, and of course some people > would not benefit from it, but if there are no regressions I think it would > be > beneficial anyway. But what _are_ the benefits? I'm sure I must be missing something. Apart from the granularity of asking a specific person -- which I don't see as relevant or helpful. > > Not if you're talking about the keywords like in the top half of the screen, > > those are horrible. if I can have NEW/UNTRIAGED, NEW/TRIAGED, NEW/CONFIRMED > > like RESOLVED/WONTFIX or RESOLVED/FIXED, then that might work. But the > > easiest flow would ideally still be from NEW to TRIAGED to CONFIRMED to > > ASSIGNED to RESOLVED. > > I don't think that adding more substate combination would improve things. Well, I would like more states -- as I explained, NEW, TRIAGED, CONFIRMED, ASSIGNED, RESOLVED, NEEDINFO would cover all my needs. That's how a bug changes over time in my workflow. Substates could work, but would not be optimal. > Is there a special reason why keywords are horrible? * They're shown in a different location, the info block of the bug, so they're not meant for tracking state, and this is state. Keywords are for describing the bug. * The keywords we have are a mish-mash mixing all kinds of different things. * and they cannot be cleaned up without removing information from existing bugs. -- Boudewijn Rempt | http://www.krita.org, http://www.valdyas.org
