Improving Bugzilla Status Names

[Andrew Crouthamel]

Does anyone else have comments on status names? The name itself or yay/nay on renames?

Here are some updated proposed names based on feedback and thesaurus searching:
UNCONFIRMED -> REPORTED or OPEN
WONTFIX -> ASDESIGNED or INTENTIONAL
INVALID -> NOTABUG or ERRONEOUS

Andrew Crouthamel

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On 5 September 2018 4:36 AM, Christian Loosli <kde at fuchsnet.ch> wrote:

> Am Mittwoch, 5. September 2018, 04:28:05 CEST schrieb Andrew Crouthamel:
>
> > Hello,
>
> Hi,
>
> thanks for your work and looking at this, I agree with them except
>
> > WONTFIX -> ASDESIGNED
> > INVALID -> NOTABUG
>
> which make it, in my opinion, less clear.
>
> WONTFIX is not only used when something is "as per design", but also in cases
> such as product no longer supported, a third party thing used (e.g. an
> interface) doesn't allow it etc.
> So "ASDESIGNED" is less clear / sometimes just wrong. I also don't think that
> the language needs softening up, because the end result will be the same: the
> user who reported the bug or wish does not get what they wanted, so it should
> be clear and match what the user will get.
>
> NOTABUG fails for similar reasons. Bugzilla is also used for feature requests
> / wish lists. These aren't bugs by definition, but they can be valid. Also bugs
> can be bugs but still the report can be invalid for other reasons.
>
> In both cases I think the important thing is that whoever sets this status
> should write in the comment why something won't be fixed or why something is
> invalid. The status is meant to be short and clear, in the proposals I think
> that clarety is removed a bit.
>
> Rest sounds good to me.
>
> > Thanks!
> > Andrew Crouthamel
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Christian