Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Merging UNCONFIRMED & CONFIRMED into NEW

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 10:23:39 -0400 Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Joshua Kinard wrote: > > It'd be nice if, when replying in a comment, a flag > > could be made available to automatically to state that "I've encountered > > this > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Merging UNCONFIRMED & CONFIRMED into NEW

On 17 June 2016 at 06:05, Marc Schiffbauer wrote: > How about "ON HOLD: Need Info" instead? "STALLED" is better for me than "ON HOLD". But I can't really see much value in such a breakdown unless we can find at *least* 2 sub-categories of "STALLED" -- Kent KENTNL -

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Merging UNCONFIRMED & CONFIRMED into NEW

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 I would like to keep CONFIRMED as I use it and find it useful. I also think that renaming UNCONFIRMED to OPEN is silly and misleading, since any non-RESOLVED bug is indeed an open bug. I don't have anything against renaming it to NEW, although I

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Merging UNCONFIRMED & CONFIRMED into NEW

* Kent Fredric schrieb am 16.06.16 um 16:05 Uhr: > On 17 June 2016 at 01:52, Joshua Kinard wrote: > > because > > sometimes, issues can get reported that are really obscure and, for example, > > tied to a particular hardware configuration, thus cannot be easily and > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Merging UNCONFIRMED & CONFIRMED into NEW

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 23:23:06 +0300 Andrew Savchenko wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 22:10:40 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 20:40:39 +0200 > > Fabian Groffen wrote: > > > > > On 16-06-2016 19:37:55 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Merging UNCONFIRMED & CONFIRMED into NEW

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 22:10:40 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 20:40:39 +0200 > Fabian Groffen wrote: > > > On 16-06-2016 19:37:55 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > > > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 18:52:32 +0200 > > > Fabian Groffen wrote: > > > > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Merging UNCONFIRMED & CONFIRMED into NEW

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 20:40:39 +0200 Fabian Groffen wrote: > On 16-06-2016 19:37:55 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 18:52:32 +0200 > > Fabian Groffen wrote: > > > > > On 16-06-2016 16:37:10 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > > > > > P.S.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Merging UNCONFIRMED & CONFIRMED into NEW

On 16-06-2016 19:37:55 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 18:52:32 +0200 > Fabian Groffen wrote: > > > On 16-06-2016 16:37:10 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > > > > P.S. Please don't CC me when replying to my e-mails on the list, > > > > since I'm already subscribed

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Merging UNCONFIRMED & CONFIRMED into NEW

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 18:52:32 +0200 Fabian Groffen wrote: > On 16-06-2016 16:37:10 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > > > P.S. Please don't CC me when replying to my e-mails on the list, > > > since I'm already subscribed to the list. > > > > Please don't expect others to keep

OT: Mail handling (Was Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Merging UNCONFIRMED & CONFIRMED into NEW)

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:37:10 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > > P.S. Please don't CC me when replying to my e-mails on the list, > > since I'm already subscribed to the list. > > Please don't expect others to keep blacklists of people who can't > handle their mail properly, or to generally harm others

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Merging UNCONFIRMED & CONFIRMED into NEW

On 16-06-2016 16:37:10 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > > P.S. Please don't CC me when replying to my e-mails on the list, > > since I'm already subscribed to the list. > > Please don't expect others to keep blacklists of people who can't > handle their mail properly, or to generally harm others and

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Merging UNCONFIRMED & CONFIRMED into NEW

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > On 16/06/16 09:47 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >> On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:22:32 +0300 >> Andrew Savchenko wrote: >>> >>> CONFIRMED state is useful, it means that dev or powerful user >>> confirmed this bug

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Merging UNCONFIRMED & CONFIRMED into NEW

On 16/06/16 09:47 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:22:32 +0300 > Andrew Savchenko wrote: >> >> CONFIRMED state is useful, it means that dev or powerful user >> confirmed this bug and gives it more value. I'd like to keep it. > > Are you saying that bugs that

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Merging UNCONFIRMED & CONFIRMED into NEW

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 17:27:07 +0300 Andrew Savchenko wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:47:46 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:22:32 +0300 > > Andrew Savchenko wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:26:47 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Merging UNCONFIRMED & CONFIRMED into NEW

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:47:46 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:22:32 +0300 > Andrew Savchenko wrote: > > > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:26:47 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > > > Hello, everyone. > > > > > > Here's my second RFC wrt bugs.gentoo.org redesign. > > > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Merging UNCONFIRMED & CONFIRMED into NEW

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Joshua Kinard wrote: > It'd be nice if, when replying in a comment, a flag > could be made available to automatically to state that "I've encountered this > issue, too", and once 2, 3, or 4 of those are logged, Bugzilla automatically > changes

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Merging UNCONFIRMED & CONFIRMED into NEW

On 17 June 2016 at 01:52, Joshua Kinard wrote: > because > sometimes, issues can get reported that are really obscure and, for example, > tied to a particular hardware configuration, thus cannot be easily and > independently confirmed Isn't that why "RESOLVED: Need Info"

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Merging UNCONFIRMED & CONFIRMED into NEW

On 16/06/16 14:22, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:26:47 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: >> Hello, everyone. >> >> Here's my second RFC wrt bugs.gentoo.org redesign. >> >> Right now we have separate UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED states for bugs. >> However, we use the two scarcely. I

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Merging UNCONFIRMED & CONFIRMED into NEW

On 06/16/2016 09:22, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:26:47 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: >> Hello, everyone. >> >> Here's my second RFC wrt bugs.gentoo.org redesign. >> >> Right now we have separate UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED states for bugs. >> However, we use the two scarcely. I

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Merging UNCONFIRMED & CONFIRMED into NEW

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:22:32 +0300 Andrew Savchenko wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:26:47 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > > Hello, everyone. > > > > Here's my second RFC wrt bugs.gentoo.org redesign. > > > > Right now we have separate UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED states for bugs.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Merging UNCONFIRMED & CONFIRMED into NEW

On 06/16/2016 02:56 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: > On 17 June 2016 at 00:51, Michał Górny wrote: >> We could also use plain 'OPEN' ;-). > > > +1. I was going to suggest the same. > Bug is still open even if it is IN_PROGRESS or not in stable. But I currently make use of the

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Merging UNCONFIRMED & CONFIRMED into NEW

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:26:47 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > Hello, everyone. > > Here's my second RFC wrt bugs.gentoo.org redesign. > > Right now we have separate UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED states for bugs. > However, we use the two scarcely. I believe it would be beneficial to > replace the two

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Merging UNCONFIRMED & CONFIRMED into NEW

On 17 June 2016 at 00:51, Michał Górny wrote: > We could also use plain 'OPEN' ;-). +1. I was going to suggest the same. -- Kent KENTNL - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Merging UNCONFIRMED & CONFIRMED into NEW

On 16-06-2016 14:51:26 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:41:43 +0200 > Fabian Groffen wrote: > > > On 16-06-2016 14:26:47 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > > > Hello, everyone. > > > > > > Here's my second RFC wrt bugs.gentoo.org redesign. > > > > > > Right now

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Merging UNCONFIRMED & CONFIRMED into NEW

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:41:43 +0200 Fabian Groffen wrote: > On 16-06-2016 14:26:47 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > > Hello, everyone. > > > > Here's my second RFC wrt bugs.gentoo.org redesign. > > > > Right now we have separate UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED states for bugs. > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Merging UNCONFIRMED & CONFIRMED into NEW

On 16-06-2016 14:26:47 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > Hello, everyone. > > Here's my second RFC wrt bugs.gentoo.org redesign. > > Right now we have separate UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED states for bugs. > However, we use the two scarcely. I believe it would be beneficial to > replace the two with a

[gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Merging UNCONFIRMED & CONFIRMED into NEW

Hello, everyone. Here's my second RFC wrt bugs.gentoo.org redesign. Right now we have separate UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED states for bugs. However, we use the two scarcely. I believe it would be beneficial to replace the two with a single NEW state. Rationale: 1. Most of developers don't care