Let's get rid of UNCONFIRMED/CONFIRMED

[Aleix Pol]

On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 12:22 PM, Paul Brown <paul.brown at kde.org> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 27 February 2018 11:51:42 CET Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 27 February 2018 11:47:22 CET Paul Brown wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, 27 February 2018 11:41:04 CET Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
>> > > Given that bugzilla is a tool for developers, I don't care that users
>> > > might
>> > > get confused.
>> > >
>> > > > We don't have this problem with phabricator tasks because they can be
>> > > > either Open or closed (for whatever reason).
>> > >
>> > > I don't let users report issues in phabricator anyway, because
>> > > phabricator
>> > > is where we plan our work. Bugzilla is the big pile of shit that comes
>> > > from
>> > > the outer world. So, phabricator's lack of fine-grained task statuses is
>> > > irrelevant.
>> >
>> > So... where are users supposed to report bugs?
>>
>> Users report bugs in bugs.kde.org. But that doesn't change that bugs.kde.org
>> is a tool for the developer, not the user. Once the bug is in bugzilla,
>> it's my property, as a developer, and I need to have a workflow that allows
>> me to efficiently handle over a thousand bug reports a year.
>>
>> Users do treat bugs.kde.org as a helpline, but that's invalid, and I close
>> such help requests as invalid, though I also give the users the help they
>> need, of course.
>
> I'll ask the question again with a slight modification: So... where are users
> supposed to report bugs according to you?

bugs.kde.org is the place.
Most of the time developers spend nowadays looking into bugs is
selecting actual bug reports among piles of issues that may be
duplicated or have problems far from our reach, which is what
Boudewijn is describing there.

If users also go to phabricator, we'll lose that one space where some
projects keep a curated list of issues and things to implement.

Aleix