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" <olav vitters nl> > To: "d-d-l" <desktop-devel-list gnome org> > 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.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part