Re: Killing off UNCONFIRMED in Bugzilla

[Olav Vitters <olav vitters nl>]

On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 11:07:50AM +0100, Sébastien Wilmet wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 10:12:22PM +0100, Andre Klapper wrote:
> > So triage incoming bug reports and set proper expectations by setting
> > status RESOLVED WONTFIX for such tickets right away, instead of spending
> > the approx. same amount of time for changing status UNCONF to NEW?
>
> Ok, but what to do with all the old bugs that are not well triaged?
> gedit contains more than 400 bugs, and triaging all of them takes a lot
> of time. If one day all of them are well triaged, then yes, it makes
> sense to remove the UNCONFIRMED status (but in that case we must be sure
> to well triage all new incoming bugs, and history has shown that it's
> not always the case).

400 bugs is not a huge number to triage. It seems you're talking about
multiple things. For triaging bugs, you have to deal with loads of bugs
which are in UNCO status, but have been triaged. Meaning: they are real
bug but never moved out of UNCO. When looking for bugs to fix, you'll
have to look at UNCO as well as NEW. But looking for bugs to fix is not
triaging. While triaging it is easier to say that you looked at it vs
knowing it really is a bug. Together with the amount of emails being
sent I usually leave things as UNCO.

Ideally you'd first have everything handled by a triage team, then it
goes to a developer. If there's a new developer you'd want to give them
a list of bugs. I don't see how UNCO vs NEW in the current usage is
beneficial.

Practically for most products no distinction is made _at all_. Bugs are
randomly spread across both statuses.

-- 
Regards,
Olav