Changes to the bugzilla workflow: 2 proposals
luigi.toscano at tiscali.it
Mon Dec 12 17:23:53 UTC 2016
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.
More information about the kde-community