Re: Anyone using UNCONFIRMED in Bugzilla?
hi Tristan; On 27 December 2011 19:35, Tristan Van Berkom wrote: > I personally don't need a 'new' bug state. > > However, I did run into a situation where old bugs were getting inadvertently > closed because they were 'unconfirmed', at which point I had to run through > my emails and re-open perfectly valid 'unconfirmed' bugs. > > Again, I don't care if there are many bug states, add some if you wish, > I only need unconfirmed and resolved personally. I'll be happy that > at least bugs don't get inadvertently closed due to their long-term > 'unconfirmed'ness. you can use per-product triage guidelines: https://live.gnome.org/Bugsquad/TriageGuide/ProductSpecificGuidelines and you can ask the bugsquad never to close an old, unconfirmed bug on the products you maintain. the wiki page above is linked from the product page on Bugzilla, and I think also in the maintainers corner wiki section, but it probably needs to be publicised more, to increase its effectiveness, and to make the work of the triagers easier. ciao, Emmanuele. -- W: http://www.emmanuelebassi.name B: http://blogs.gnome.org/ebassi/ ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Anyone using UNCONFIRMED in Bugzilla?
I personally don't need a 'new' bug state. However, I did run into a situation where old bugs were getting inadvertently closed because they were 'unconfirmed', at which point I had to run through my emails and re-open perfectly valid 'unconfirmed' bugs. Again, I don't care if there are many bug states, add some if you wish, I only need unconfirmed and resolved personally. I'll be happy that at least bugs don't get inadvertently closed due to their long-term 'unconfirmed'ness. Cheers, -Tristan On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 3:24 AM, Dan Winship wrote: > On 12/27/2011 10:43 AM, Matthew Barnes wrote: >> I'd like to see UNCONFIRMED removed but maybe as a compromise add a >> "confirmed" Bugzilla keyword for projects to use or not use as they please. > > Stock bugzilla allows you to set on a per-product basis whether > newly-created bugs are NEW or UNCONFIRMED, but as far as I was able to > tell when I was looking at this > (https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=658470) we explicitly > removed that functionality on bgo. > > -- Dan > ___ > desktop-devel-list mailing list > desktop-devel-list@gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Anyone using UNCONFIRMED in Bugzilla?
On 12/27/2011 10:43 AM, Matthew Barnes wrote: > I'd like to see UNCONFIRMED removed but maybe as a compromise add a > "confirmed" Bugzilla keyword for projects to use or not use as they please. Stock bugzilla allows you to set on a per-product basis whether newly-created bugs are NEW or UNCONFIRMED, but as far as I was able to tell when I was looking at this (https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=658470) we explicitly removed that functionality on bgo. -- Dan ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Anyone using UNCONFIRMED in Bugzilla?
On Tue, 2011-12-27 at 10:43 -0500, Matthew Barnes wrote: > Worth pointing out the previous discussion about this on the infrastructure > list: > > http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-infrastructure/2010-July/msg00045.html > > (carried into August) > http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-infrastructure/2010-August/msg00021.html > > I think NEW vs UNCONFIRMED is more useful for newer projects with a small > number of bugs than large projects with a 10-year Bugzilla backlog. It just > doesn't scale. In my experience the distinction seems more important to > users than developers. I personally ignore it for Evolution, but we still > get frequent user requests for some old bug report or feature request to be > moved off UNCONFIRMED to NEW, as if that's gonna magically do something. > > I'd like to see UNCONFIRMED removed but maybe as a compromise add a > "confirmed" Bugzilla keyword for projects to use or not use as they please. That's a very reasonable suggestion which I think would work. Philip > Matthew Barnes > > > - Original Message - > From: "Olav Vitters" > To: "d-d-l" > Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2011 9:36:34 AM > Subject: Anyone using UNCONFIRMED in Bugzilla? > > Hello, > > Does anyone make use of the UNCONFIRMED vs NEW distinction in Bugzilla? > > I think it does more harm than good. We have UNCONFIRMED, NEW, ASSIGNED. > I think at the moment we only use UNCONFIRMED and RESOLVED, totally > ignoring NEW mostly. > > If nobody speaks up, I'm going to kill UNCONFIRMED and use NEW instead. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Anyone using UNCONFIRMED in Bugzilla?
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Olav Vitters wrote: > Are you using it yes or no? I am. Please don't kill it. -- Alexandre Franke ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Anyone using UNCONFIRMED in Bugzilla?
Worth pointing out the previous discussion about this on the infrastructure list: http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-infrastructure/2010-July/msg00045.html (carried into August) http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-infrastructure/2010-August/msg00021.html I think NEW vs UNCONFIRMED is more useful for newer projects with a small number of bugs than large projects with a 10-year Bugzilla backlog. It just doesn't scale. In my experience the distinction seems more important to users than developers. I personally ignore it for Evolution, but we still get frequent user requests for some old bug report or feature request to be moved off UNCONFIRMED to NEW, as if that's gonna magically do something. I'd like to see UNCONFIRMED removed but maybe as a compromise add a "confirmed" Bugzilla keyword for projects to use or not use as they please. Matthew Barnes - Original Message - From: "Olav Vitters" To: "d-d-l" Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2011 9:36:34 AM Subject: Anyone using UNCONFIRMED in Bugzilla? Hello, Does anyone make use of the UNCONFIRMED vs NEW distinction in Bugzilla? I think it does more harm than good. We have UNCONFIRMED, NEW, ASSIGNED. I think at the moment we only use UNCONFIRMED and RESOLVED, totally ignoring NEW mostly. If nobody speaks up, I'm going to kill UNCONFIRMED and use NEW instead. -- Regards, Olav ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Anyone using UNCONFIRMED in Bugzilla?
On Tue, 2011-12-27 at 15:36 +0100, Olav Vitters wrote: > Hello, > > Does anyone make use of the UNCONFIRMED vs NEW distinction in Bugzilla? > > I think it does more harm than good. We have UNCONFIRMED, NEW, ASSIGNED. > I think at the moment we only use UNCONFIRMED and RESOLVED, totally > ignoring NEW mostly. I use it, but not entirely consistently. i.e. I sometimes forget, or it isn't appropriate, to mark a bug as NEW. > If nobody speaks up, I'm going to kill UNCONFIRMED and use NEW instead. I wouldn't mind either way. What do other large Bugzilla installations (Mozilla, Red Hat, etc.)? What does Launchpad do? Philip signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Anyone using UNCONFIRMED in Bugzilla?
On mar, 2011-12-27 at 16:48 +0200, pec...@gmail.com wrote: > Isn't UNCONFIRMED status meant for, you know, indication that > developer haven't reproduced and verified this bug yet? For me NEW > indicates that bug is found valid (from technical point of view) and > needs fixing. > > So please don't kill it. It's useful. I agree with this, It's useful, but my question is, how many developers pay attention to NEW status? I dont know, in bugzilla I found 13754 bugs with this status, and 28572 with UNCONFIRMED status. Maybe we need a new policy... ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Anyone using UNCONFIRMED in Bugzilla?
On Tue, 2011-12-27 at 15:57 +0100, Olav Vitters wrote: > On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 04:48:20PM +0200, pec...@gmail.com wrote: > > So please don't kill it. It's useful. > > Are you using it yes or no? I agree with the sentiment expressed by the others in this thread; although I don't use it consistently, I often use it - I find it particularly useful for projects with large amounts of bug reports. Cheers, Cosimo ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Anyone using UNCONFIRMED in Bugzilla?
Le mardi 27 décembre 2011 à 15:57 +0100, Olav Vitters a écrit : > On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 04:48:20PM +0200, pec...@gmail.com wrote: > > So please don't kill it. It's useful. > > Are you using it yes or no? I do, for the same reasons Peter described in his message. Emmanuel. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Anyone using UNCONFIRMED in Bugzilla?
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Olav Vitters wrote: > On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 04:48:20PM +0200, pec...@gmail.com wrote: >> So please don't kill it. It's useful. > > Are you using it yes or no? I use it in that way. Could probably get along without it but that's the way I've been doing things. I'd think Andre, as bugmaster extraordinaire, would have an opinion here. Cheers, Chris > > -- > Regards, > Olav > ___ > desktop-devel-list mailing list > desktop-devel-list@gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Anyone using UNCONFIRMED in Bugzilla?
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 04:48:20PM +0200, pec...@gmail.com wrote: > So please don't kill it. It's useful. Are you using it yes or no? -- Regards, Olav ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Anyone using UNCONFIRMED in Bugzilla?
2011. gada 27. decembris 16:36 Olav Vitters rakstīja: > Hello, > > Does anyone make use of the UNCONFIRMED vs NEW distinction in Bugzilla? > > I think it does more harm than good. We have UNCONFIRMED, NEW, ASSIGNED. > I think at the moment we only use UNCONFIRMED and RESOLVED, totally > ignoring NEW mostly. > > If nobody speaks up, I'm going to kill UNCONFIRMED and use NEW instead. Isn't UNCONFIRMED status meant for, you know, indication that developer haven't reproduced and verified this bug yet? For me NEW indicates that bug is found valid (from technical point of view) and needs fixing. So please don't kill it. It's useful. Respectfully, Peter. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Anyone using UNCONFIRMED in Bugzilla?
Hello, Does anyone make use of the UNCONFIRMED vs NEW distinction in Bugzilla? I think it does more harm than good. We have UNCONFIRMED, NEW, ASSIGNED. I think at the moment we only use UNCONFIRMED and RESOLVED, totally ignoring NEW mostly. If nobody speaks up, I'm going to kill UNCONFIRMED and use NEW instead. -- Regards, Olav ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
