Let's get rid of UNCONFIRMED/CONFIRMED

[Boudewijn Rempt]

On Tuesday, 27 February 2018 15:23:16 CET Luca Beltrame wrote:
> Il giorno Tue, 27 Feb 2018 14:58:22 +0100
> Boudewijn Rempt <boud at valdyas.org> ha
> 
> scritto:
> > * A bug nobody has looked at yet
> 
> How would NEW not fit the bill? (As opposed to UNCONFIRMED)
> 
> > * A bug someone other than the reporter has looked at, but which was
> > not reproducible
> 
> Do you mean a single status that covers  WORKSFORME / NOTABUG /
> INVALID?

No, that's exactly the point! Those go together with having the bug RESOLVED. 
But the bug hasn't been resolved at this point: it's still open, despite one 
triager having tried to reproduce and failed.

I want to have a status that says, someone has looked at it, but hasn't been 
able to reproduce. That's _not_ the same thing as worksforme or invalid (we 
don't have notabug in KDE). Worksforme is only usable if we're really 100% 
sure that the reporter is mistaken, the application works, we won't have to 
change any code and can resolve the bug. 

UNCONFIRMED would mean: someone else than the reporter has already looked at 
it. But we should still try to reproduce it again.

> 
> > * A bug someone other than the reporter has been able to reproduce.
> 
> This is probably the only possibly use case for CONFIRMED, but I'm not
> too keen on the wording (see my other messages on why).
> 
> There are other bits that are important for triaging, but those don't
> fit the main topic of this thread.


-- 
Boudewijn Rempt | https://www.valdyas.org | https://www.krita.org