Use of CLOSED in Bugzilla (was) Re: [Bug 284853] ...

[Anne-Marie Mahfouf]

On 08/28/2012 05:44 PM, Myriam Schweingruber wrote:
> Just a few things to be set correctly:
>
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Janek Bevendorff
> <jbev_kdelists at refining-linux.org> wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>>
>> On 08/28/2012 11:30 AM, David Edmundson wrote:
>>> Does this actually change anything other than the words. Would we
>>> still expect all resolved bugs to be verified?
> ...
>> First of all the status NEW is replaced with the status UNCONFIRMED
>> (which is already much clearer).
> There you are already wrong, as currently we have UNCONFIRMED by
> default, what we need to do is replace the wording from NEW to
> CONFIRMED, that is already a request made some time ago buy several
> triagers:
>
> https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=195305
>
> What also needs to change is the fact that all developers
> automatically have their submitted bugs marked as NEW, even if they
> are not necessarily involved with that particular project and might
> simply not have a clue if their bug report is complete. That is
> reported here:
>
> https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=183217
>
>> Then after a triager or developer was
>> able to reproduce it, he marks it as CONFIRMED. Bugs that are being
>> worked on are IN_PROGRESS and once they have been fixed (or it has
>> been decided not to fix them at all) they are RESOLVED. RESOLVED is
>> also the only status that has additional solutions such as FIXED,
>> DUPLICATE, WORKSFORME etc.
> Wrong again, as we absolutely need the NEEDSINFO status you seem to
> forget in your workflow, without this is just not doable, and this is
> definitely another status with several possibilities.
>
>> That could be the end, but if someone from the QA team can verify that
>> a bug has actually been fixed he can set the status to VERIFIED.
>>
> I agree with you for the rest indeed, although the current status
> called RESOLVED is also a very misleading wording, I would prefer
> CLOSED much more as it wouldn't suggest for example an existing
> resolution when closing something as RESOLVED -> DOWNSTREAM.
>
> What we certainly don't need is having both CLOSED and RESOLVED,
> simply because we don't have the manpower to go through all bugs with
> the RESOLVED status and verify them to be really closed.
>
> It would also remove the misleading wording we all use nowadays,
> namely talking about bugs in status RESOLVED to be closed bugs which
> technically is wrong.
>
> I am still waiting for Jeroen to chime in as he has also plans for
> this. What I really think is that we need to simplify the current
> workflow, I don't think we should stick to an "offical bugzilla"
> workflow that is actually made for Mozilla, not for KDE, but have a
> workflow we all can agree upon.
>
> Regards, Myriam
Hi,

This list got a mail from the KWin team asking to check if the bugs they 
RESOLVED as FIXED are indeed fixed in the stable (4.9) branch (backports 
can go wrong and regressions can be introduced). There is a list of the 
bugs they are concerned about.
The 4.0 bugzilla workflow proposes to set the status to VERIFIED if QA 
checks it and is satisfied. Or to go back to CONFIRMED if the bug is 
still present. I find this good personally but what if the bug is not 
properly fixed in master?

I agree with Myriam that we should define a workflow that works for us.

Best regards,

Anne-Marie