Let's get rid of UNCONFIRMED/CONFIRMED

[Ilmari Lauhakangas]

On 27.02.2018 22:06, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> On Tuesday, 27 February 2018 20:39:31 CET Elvis Angelaccio wrote:
> 
>> Exactly. Also, what Luca said: unconfirmed gives the impression that we
>> don't care about the bug.
>>
>> My point is that confirmed/unconfirmed adds more problems than it solves.
> 
> Note _again_ that I am NOT asking for keeping unconfirmed/confirmed to stay
> like it is with those terms. What I _need_ is another state. To repeat, I need
> the following states:
> 
> * bug is reported, nobody has looked at it.
> * bug is reported, somebody has looked at it, but the bug cannot be resolved
> or confirmed at this point
> * bug is confirmed, but not resolved yet
> * bug is resolved in one way or another.
> 
> Call them whatever you want, I'll be fine with that. New, Triaged, Confirmed,
> Resolved, whatever.

It is somewhat anxiety-inducing to follow this discussion from the 
perspective of someone who has worked in a solid QA team for several years.

What you need to focus on right now is not bikeshedding about statuses 
etc., but to recruit more and more QA/triagers. The QA team is Martin's 
"second level support". This is the primary solution.

Two years ago we had essentially the same "should we add a TRIAGED 
status" -discussion over at LibreOffice, initiated by myself. This was 
almost purely thinking about QA workers, not developers - yes, we are 
that independent. In the end we did not add the status. It is hard to 
predict the effects of increasing complexity so we did not bother.

Ilmari