[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Bugzilla semantics: marking bugs as triaged



John Poelstra, Thu, 16 Jul 2009 18:56:03 -0700:
> This has been discussed at length before.  I believe the initial
> reluctance was changing the set process for a handful of people that
> wanted to do things differently and then trying to keep track of that.
> One major reason for not changing the state definitions was that the
> Fedora usage of the bug states was the same as RHEL.
> 
> At one time I thought the "keyword" approach was a good idea and it
> still seems to make a lot of good sense... I can't remember why we
> didn't move forward with it, but as you explain, it seems like a good
> compromise.

This has been actually flamed to death and I (and others) spent endless 
hours defending the current status quo. The main reason for this has been 
that we wanted to minimize changes in our bugzilla, not rocking the boat 
unnecessarily, etc. Also, the meaning of ASSIGNED was somehow understood 
and we didn't want to change the world for bugzilla users too much ... it 
is already too complicated.

Moreover, I am not sure what are actual benefits of any change. The word 
"ASSIGNED" is just a label which covers much richer set of meanings, and 
I am not sure any other word would be able to cover completely the state 
the bug should be in.

Moreover, I don't believe for a second that conversion from ASSIGNED to 
something else would be that simple as you would like to see it ... there 
are tons of tiny shifts in meanings of individual components which could 
be lost and make even bigger mess than it is.

So, if the only reason for this is to include anaconda to the crowd, then 
I would say, it's better to make some huge exception for them, than to 
make earthquake which would make a life more difficult for everybody.

Matěj


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]