Improving Bugzilla Status Names

[David Jarvie]

On 28 September 2018 09:48:42 BST, Luigi Toscano <luigi.toscano at tiscali.it> wrote:
>Kai Uwe Broulik ha scritto:
>> Hi,
>> 
>>  > Here is my follow-up change recommendation based on feedback and
>research:
>>  >
>>  > UNCONFIRMED -> REPORTED
>>  > WONTFIX -> INTENTIONAL
>>  > INVALID -> NOTABUG
>> 
>> one issue I'm having with "REPORTED" is that it shows up as "REPO" in
>the list 
>> and can easily be confused with "REOP" for "REOPENED". Perhaps we
>need 
>> something different for Reopened then.
>
>If we rename also that, we would have two bug names diverging from the
>other 
>bug trackers, instead of just one. Moreover I find that there is no
>much to 
>discuss on the appropriateness of REOPENED.
>I'd rather find an alternative for REPORTED, if this confusion is going
>to be 
>an issue.
>
>-- 
>Luigi

I think that REPORTED is an ideal term for a newly opened bug. Is there really a problem with the abbreviations REPO and REOP? Surely people will quickly get used to making the distinction, if they make a mistake at all. In any case, as soon as the bug report is accessed, it will be clear what its status is. Please keep REPORTED and REOPENED as they are.

--
David Jarvie
KAlarm author, KDE developer
http://www.astrojar.org.uk/kalarm
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-community/attachments/20180930/ec581608/attachment.htm>