public inbox for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Brian Harring <ferringb@gmail.com>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla - New Default Status Workflow
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 04:50:29 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110306125029.GA9616@hrair> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4D737C71.1040806@gentoo.org>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1244 bytes --]

On Sun, Mar 06, 2011 at 01:22:09PM +0100, Christian Ruppert wrote:
> Hey guys,
> 
> in bugzilla-4.x they did change the "Status Workflow"[1].
> 
> <snip>
> This will convert the status of all bugs using the following
> system:
> 
>   "NEW" will become "CONFIRMED"

This seems mildly insane; sure you didn't mean UNCONFIRMED?


>   "ASSIGNED" will become "IN_PROGRESS"
>   "REOPENED" will become "CONFIRMED" (and the "REOPENED" status will be
> removed)

Similarly weird.


>   "CLOSED" will become "VERIFIED" (and the "CLOSED" status will be removed)

VERIFIED != CLOSED; CLOSED means "this issue should be fixed", 
VERIFIED means "this issue is confirmed fixed by whatever qa/testing 
in use"- specifically beyond the developer's testing.


> We're almost done with the preparation of bugzilla-4.x for bugs.gentoo.org.
> So, do we want the new workflow or do we want to keep the old?

The new is more orientated towards bugzilla workflow's that have 
actual secondary validation of a change- developer fixes it, closes 
it, QA marks it verified, that sort of thing.

That doesn't really fit our flow all that much, as such we really 
shouldn't be taking their defaults without tweaking it a bit.

~brian

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

  parent reply	other threads:[~2011-03-06 12:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-03-06 12:22 [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla - New Default Status Workflow Christian Ruppert
2011-03-06 12:45 ` Petteri Räty
2011-03-06 12:55   ` Christian Ruppert
2011-03-06 12:48 ` Nirbheek Chauhan
2011-03-06 12:50 ` Brian Harring [this message]
2011-03-07  7:24   ` "Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
2011-03-07 10:13     ` Brian Harring
2011-03-10 11:10       ` "Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
2011-03-10 11:15         ` Markos Chandras
2011-03-10 16:04           ` Mike Gilbert
2011-03-10 19:42             ` Jeroen Roovers
2011-03-10 20:06               ` Amadeusz Żołnowski
2011-03-11  3:52                 ` Jeroen Roovers
2011-03-11  4:35                   ` [gentoo-dev] " Ryan Hill
2011-03-06 13:17 ` Christian Faulhammer
2011-03-07 23:17   ` Jeroen Roovers
2011-03-06 13:39 ` [gentoo-dev] " Ulrich Mueller
2011-03-06 13:50   ` Nirbheek Chauhan
2011-03-06 15:44 ` "Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
2011-03-07  8:34 ` Michał Górny
2011-03-07 10:34   ` [gentoo-dev] " Duncan
2011-04-28 14:07 ` [gentoo-dev] " Christian Ruppert
2011-04-28 15:06   ` Panagiotis Christopoulos
2011-04-30  8:01     ` Peter Volkov
2011-04-28 15:07   ` Alex Alexander
2011-04-30  8:40   ` Christian Ruppert
2011-05-01  9:39     ` Christian Ruppert
2011-05-01  9:58       ` Christian Ruppert
2011-05-01  1:24   ` Maciej Mrozowski

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20110306125029.GA9616@hrair \
    --to=ferringb@gmail.com \
    --cc=gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox