Changes to the bugzilla workflow: 2 proposals

[Luigi Toscano]

On Monday, 12 December 2016 18:13:57 CET Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2016, David Edmundson wrote:
> > In terms of bugzilla workflow, we need to indicate 3 possible states of
> > 
> > who we are waiting on:
> >  - needs bugzilla input from a developer (current unconfirmed)
> >  - needs bugzilla input from the reporter (current needsinfo)
> >  - doesn't require any further bugzilla input (current confirmed/resolved
> > 
> > as appropriate)
> 
> But are the states just there to reflect that we're waiting on something?
> 
> > I don't think it can be done in any fewer statuses, and I don't really see
> > how it requires any more.
> 
> As I said before, and I handle the second-biggest KDE project in terms of
> new bugs per year, my workflow would be easier with more states, and I'll
> describe them, instead of using existing terms:

I think that David was talking about the "needinfo" condition.

> 
> [...]
> On a tangent, but something I've wanted to bring up for long time...
> 
> Yeah, they're nuts. Well, maybe not nuts, but bugzilla is a poster-child
> of rudeness towards people who want to help. RESOLVED/WONTFIX, RESOLVED/
> INVALID -- that all reads as "BUGGEROFF/YOUIDIOT.

This is not bugzilla "per se". We can't change the name of the resolution. 
I've seen CANTFIX otherwise, but of course we can find more friendly values. 

-- 
Luigi