Does anyone else have comments on status names? The name itself or yay/nay on renames?
Here are some updated proposed names based on feedback and thesaurus searching: UNCONFIRMED -> REPORTED or OPEN WONTFIX -> ASDESIGNED or INTENTIONAL INVALID -> NOTABUG or ERRONEOUS Andrew Crouthamel ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On 5 September 2018 4:36 AM, Christian Loosli <[email protected]> wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 5. September 2018, 04:28:05 CEST schrieb Andrew Crouthamel: > > > Hello, > > Hi, > > thanks for your work and looking at this, I agree with them except > > > WONTFIX -> ASDESIGNED > > INVALID -> NOTABUG > > which make it, in my opinion, less clear. > > WONTFIX is not only used when something is "as per design", but also in cases > such as product no longer supported, a third party thing used (e.g. an > interface) doesn't allow it etc. > So "ASDESIGNED" is less clear / sometimes just wrong. I also don't think that > the language needs softening up, because the end result will be the same: the > user who reported the bug or wish does not get what they wanted, so it should > be clear and match what the user will get. > > NOTABUG fails for similar reasons. Bugzilla is also used for feature requests > / wish lists. These aren't bugs by definition, but they can be valid. Also > bugs > can be bugs but still the report can be invalid for other reasons. > > In both cases I think the important thing is that whoever sets this status > should write in the comment why something won't be fixed or why something is > invalid. The status is meant to be short and clear, in the proposals I think > that clarety is removed a bit. > > Rest sounds good to me. > > > Thanks! > > Andrew Crouthamel > > Kind regards, > > Christian
