On Mar 16, 2012, at 12:52 AM, Mark A. Hershberger wrote:
Rob Lanphier <robla(a)wikimedia.org> writes:
Mark and I just discussed this, and he's
going to look into having a
"CONFIRMED" state.
https://bugzillaupdate.wordpress.com/2010/07/06/bugzilla-4-0-has-a-new-defa…
describes this implementation:
UNCONFIRMED -> CONFIRMED -> IN_PROGRESS -> RESOLVED -> VERIFIED
Since "UNCONFIRMED" is used so many places, I'm worried about changing
that to "NEW".
So up until last month we had this workflow:
1. NEW
2. ASSIGNED[1]
3. RESOLVED
(sometimes) 4. VERIFIED
(or) REOPENED -> step 1
I understand that last week it changed to:
1. UNCONFIRMED
2. NEW
3. ASSIGNED
4. RESOLVED
(sometimes) 5. VERIFIED
(or) REOPENED -> step 2
I don't think it makes sense to use "NEW" as "CONFIRMED", because,
agreeing
with [2], "NEW" is not descriptive. How about using "CONFIRMED" and
dropping
"NEW" completely?
-- Krinkle
[1] The difference between a confirmed bug having an assignee and status
ASSIGNED, is that ASSIGNED means someone has it on his agenda to actively
work on. Whereas the assignee in general is just whoever is currently
watching over it. ASSIGNED and IN_PROGRESS are basically there same. Except
that "IN_PRORESS" is slightly later than ASSIGNED but using both doesn't
make sense and we're already using ASSIGNED.
[2]
https://bugzillaupdate.wordpress.com/2010/07/06/bugzilla-4-0-has-a-new-defa…
[3]
http://www.bugzilla.org/docs/4.0/en/html/lifecycle.html