Re: Killing off UNCONFIRMED in Bugzilla

[Sébastien Wilmet <swilmet gnome org>]

On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 09:09:10PM +0100, Andre Klapper wrote:
> On Sat, 2015-02-14 at 19:02 +0100, Sébastien Wilmet wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 06:43:35PM +0100, Sébastien Wilmet wrote:
> > > For example in gedit UNCONFIRMED means that the bug is not triaged.
>
> How and to who does it actually matter?
> If it currently means that no developer will take a look at those
> tickets (though some of them might be totally valid) and if no other
> triagers are around, wouldn't it make sense to get rid of UNCONF so
> developers might suddenly & accidentially look at such tickets? ;)

A bug triager only needs to look at UNCONFIRMED bugs.
A contributor willing to fix a bug has more chances to find a real bug
with the NEW status.
It's even more important for feature requests. If a contributor provides
a patch for an unconfirmed feature request and then the bug is closed as
wontfix, I think the contributor won't come back ;-)

> > What about NEW and CONFIRMED statuses?
>
> I am reluctant to rename statuses; see my other email.

The UNCONFIRMED status can be kept around to not break URLs, but would
be hidden by default, no?

> Relatedly, https://bugzilla.gnome.org/page.cgi?id=browse.html now offers
> a "Bugs without a response" link again in the sidebar. 

Yep, it's really nice to have this link. But some untriaged bugs have
some responses (by the same person or other people). The same for
feature requests, some are not confirmed and some people add comments "I
want that too".


Sébastien