Konqueror bugs - a few questions

[Frank Reininghaus]

Hi,

2012/6/21 Myriam Schweingruber:
>>> - When the bug is reproducible
>>
>> By the way, the word "reproducible" as a keyword
>> https://bugs.kde.org/describekeywords.cgi
>> does not exist. It's "reproduceable". Since a lot of us use reproducible,
>> I wish both keyword spellings would be allowed.
>
> Well, a keyword can be changed, especially one with such a dreadful
> spelling error,

actually, both spellings exist. "Reproducible" may be more common than
"reproduceable" though.

> and I don't think it is actually needed, as a bug in
> status NEW is confirmed. The wording is misleading currently, there is
> a wish to the b.k.o maintainers to change the wording of the status
> NEW to CONFIRMED

The meaning of the keyword is: "Indicates that the bug is 100%
reproduceable: the instructions are clear enough and the bug is
deterministic enough, so that anyone who tries to reproduce the bug,
hits it on the first try."

This is not the case for a large number of NEW bugs, e.g.,
a) crashes that have been confirmed by someone because it's known that
they happen some of the time, but not always,
b) bugs that have been "confirmed by popular vote",
c) bugs that have been reported by users with bugzilla permissions,
d) bugs that can only be reproduced on particular hardware, with a
special combination of upstream libs, with distro-specific patches
applied, ...

The keyword was added by David Faure because he thought his time is
best spent on bugs which are 100% reproducible and not on triaging
bugs which are NEW, but cannot be reproduced.

Best regards,
Frank