On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Bill Meier <wme...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On 11/30/2012 4:08 PM, Evan Huus wrote: > >> Would UNCONFIRMED be less confusing than CONFIRMED? >> >> >> I would think so. It's bothered me for a while that we didn't have a way >> to distinguish between "brand new, nobody has looked at it yet" bugs and >> "solution identified, but nobody wants to work on it" bugs. Separating >> our current NEW bugs into either UNCONFIRMED or CONFIRMED states seems >> like the right way to do that. >> >> > +1 > > I would also note that presumably the status can just go from UNCONFIRMED > to RESOLVED if a bug is just immediately fixed upon reviewing. I would hope so. > While on the topic, I'd also love an "INCOMPLETE" state like Launchpad >> (for bugs that are waiting on the submitter for more information -- we >> seem to have a fair number of those), but I suppose one thing at a time :) >> >> > +1, I think. > > How does the incomplete status get updated when the additional information > is provided ? manually ? > > If manually, is this OK in practice or do peole forget to update the > status ? > The submitter sets it back to NEW (or UNCONFIRMED) manually when they provide the requested information. People don't forget, because bugs in this state expire after 60 days otherwise. It's a great method for keeping the bug list short :)
___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
