Nate Graham ha scritto:
> Thank you, Chris.
>
> So I should not mark a bug as CONFIRMED when I or someone else has simply
> reproduced it? The most logical meaning to me is that CONFIRMED means "We've
> verified that this is a real bug but we don't yet know what's causing it".
It depends on the someone else: another developer or triager can mark it as
CONFIRMED when the bug is really existing. The procedure for becoming a
regular contributor (developer or triager) is always the same: get involved
with the project until someone says "why don't you have the permissions to do
this instead of asking me every time" and you get the permissions :)
>
> Might it make sense to introduce another state ("INVESTIGATED?") to describe
> the state meaning "We've not only verified that this is a real bug, but we
> think we know what's causing it, though we haven't been able to fix it yet."
I don't see the reason for another state. If it arrives at the point that it's
investigated, it should be moved to CONFIRMED.
Please note that this is my experience with triaging in my non-KDE work time,
so Christopher may disagree with something I wrote above. I'm not doing much
general triaging unfortunately here but with my developer permissions I can
consistently reproduce a bug in some component on bugs.kde.org where I'm not a
regular contributor, I move it to CONFIRMED nevertheless.
Ciao
--
Luigi
