[gentoo-dev] Bugzilla - New Default Status Workflow

[gentoo-dev] Bugzilla - New Default Status Workflow

[Christian Ruppert]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 994 bytes --]

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

This change will be immediate. The history of each bug will also be changed
so that it appears that these statuses were always in existence.

Emails will not be sent for the change.
</snip>

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?

[1]
http://www.bugzilla.org/releases/4.0/release-notes.html#v40_feat_workflow

-- 
Regards,
Christian Ruppert
Role: Gentoo Linux developer, Bugzilla administrator and Infrastructure
member
Fingerprint: EEB1 C341 7C84 B274 6C59  F243 5EAB 0C62 B427 ABC8


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 554 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla - New Default Status Workflow

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 552 bytes --]

On 03/06/2011 02:22 PM, 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:
> 

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

We would be loosing information here (at least you would need to go
looking at bug history to find it). Would it be possible to have the new
workflow + REOPENED? Would other statuses continue to exist like before?

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla - New Default Status Workflow

[Nirbheek Chauhan]

On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Christian Ruppert <idl0r@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> in bugzilla-4.x they did change the "Status Workflow"[1].
>
[snip]
>
> 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?
>

I'm not attached to the names we use for the various bug statuses. I
would suggest that we follow the path that makes things easiest for
future maintenance and upgrades.

As for the removal of REOPENED, I guess that information will still be
visible via the "bug history" button? It shouldn't be a problem then.

-- 
~Nirbheek Chauhan

Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla - New Default Status Workflow

[Brian Harring]

[-- 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 --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla - New Default Status Workflow

[Christian Ruppert]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 822 bytes --]

On 03/06/2011 01:45 PM, Petteri Räty wrote:
> On 03/06/2011 02:22 PM, 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:
>>
> 
>>   "REOPENED" will become "CONFIRMED" (and the "REOPENED" status will be
>> removed)
> 
> We would be loosing information here (at least you would need to go
> looking at bug history to find it). Would it be possible to have the new
> workflow + REOPENED? Would other statuses continue to exist like before?
> 
> Regards,
> Petteri
> 

Yes. Yes.

-- 
Regards,
Christian Ruppert
Role: Gentoo Linux developer, Bugzilla administrator and Infrastructure
member
Fingerprint: EEB1 C341 7C84 B274 6C59  F243 5EAB 0C62 B427 ABC8


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 554 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Bugzilla - New Default Status Workflow

[Christian Faulhammer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 454 bytes --]

Hi,

Christian Ruppert <idl0r@gentoo.org>:
> 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?

 New one, reopened is a bit pointless information on first glance.
 History tells enough.

V-Li

-- 
Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project
<URL:http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode

<URL:http://gentoo.faulhammer.org/>

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla - New Default Status Workflow

[Ulrich Mueller]

>>>>> On Sun, 6 Mar 2011, Christian Ruppert wrote:

> This will convert the status of all bugs using the following
> system:

>   "NEW" will become "CONFIRMED"

Weird. How can a newly added bug be "CONFIRMED", unless someone has
taken some action to confirm it?

> This change will be immediate. The history of each bug will also be
> changed so that it appears that these statuses were always in
> existence.

So all bugs currently marked as "NEW" or "REOPENED" will change their
status to "CONFIRMED"? That doesn't look right to me. Would that
status change be visible in the bug's history?

> So, do we want the new workflow or do we want to keep the old?

If the new workflow implies such status changes on existing bugs, then
keep the old one please.

Ulrich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla - New Default Status Workflow

[Nirbheek Chauhan]

On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 6 Mar 2011, Christian Ruppert wrote:
>
>> This will convert the status of all bugs using the following
>> system:
>
>>   "NEW" will become "CONFIRMED"
>
> Weird. How can a newly added bug be "CONFIRMED", unless someone has
> taken some action to confirm it?
>
>> This change will be immediate. The history of each bug will also be
>> changed so that it appears that these statuses were always in
>> existence.
>
> So all bugs currently marked as "NEW" or "REOPENED" will change their
> status to "CONFIRMED"? That doesn't look right to me. Would that
> status change be visible in the bug's history?
>
>> So, do we want the new workflow or do we want to keep the old?
>
> If the new workflow implies such status changes on existing bugs, then
> keep the old one please.
>

The link to the docs which idl0r gave says that it's optional to
convert existing status changes. They gave a perl script to do the
conversion.


-- 
~Nirbheek Chauhan

Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla - New Default Status Workflow

["Paweł Hajdan, Jr."]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 819 bytes --]

On 3/6/11 1:22 PM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
> 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?

I like the new workflow more, mostly because of simplicity. This is also
closer to what code.google.com uses, and my experience with it was very
positive.

Before we start arguing for and against various details, let's ask one
simple question - are we actually using all those CLOSED and VERIFIED
statuses, and what does it change that a bug is REOPENED vs. NEW.

Now one of the issues I can indeed understand is the CONFIRMED status
vs. UNCONFIRMED. Still, I'm not sure whether we use UNCONFIRMED so much.
Anyway, it should be possible to add UNCONFIRMED on top of the new
workflow, right?

Paweł Hajdan, Jr.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 194 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla - New Default Status Workflow

["Paweł Hajdan, Jr."]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 504 bytes --]

On 3/6/11 1:50 PM, Brian Harring wrote:
>>   "NEW" will become "CONFIRMED"
> 
> This seems mildly insane; sure you didn't mean UNCONFIRMED?

I don't understand that concern. There is UNCONFIRMED and NEW, now you'd
get UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED. It seems to me it's just NEW with a
different name, and UNCONFIRMED would still be there:

<http://bugzillaupdate.wordpress.com/2010/07/06/bugzilla-4-0-has-a-new-default-status-workflow/>

I'm in favor of the new workflow.

Paweł Hajdan, Jr.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 194 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla - New Default Status Workflow

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 831 bytes --]

On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 13:22:09 +0100
Christian Ruppert <idl0r@gentoo.org> wrote:

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

I'd say, both to UNCONFIRMED. Before, we used to set 'NEW' for newly-
added bugs and didn't use UNCONFIRMED often. Right now, it seems
logical to use UNCONFIRMED for the new bugs and let devs (re-)confirm
them as necessary.

I think it might be even a good idea to limit the possibility
of setting 'CONFIRMED' to devs. Otherwise, I see users bumping each
of their bugs to 'CONFIRMED' immediately.

> 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?

New one. Simpler is better.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla - New Default Status Workflow

[Brian Harring]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 997 bytes --]

On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 08:24:46AM +0100, "Paweee Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> On 3/6/11 1:50 PM, Brian Harring wrote:
> >>   "NEW" will become "CONFIRMED"
> > 
> > This seems mildly insane; sure you didn't mean UNCONFIRMED?
> 
> I don't understand that concern. There is UNCONFIRMED and NEW, now you'd
> get UNCONFIRMED and CONFIRMED. It seems to me it's just NEW with a
> different name, and UNCONFIRMED would still be there:
> 
> <http://bugzillaupdate.wordpress.com/2010/07/06/bugzilla-4-0-has-a-new-default-status-workflow/>

Re-read what he stated- it'll convert all existing NEW bugs to 
CONFIRMED upon migration.  There's a fair number of bugs that are in a 
NEW state, decent number that have sat for a long while too.  Those 
bugs aren't 'confirmed'- just like with the new work flow where the 
dev flips it from UNCONFIRMED to CONFIRMED, leave it to devs to flip 
the current bugs from UNCONFIRMED to CONFIRMED rather than just 
marking everything as CONFIRMED.

~harring

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

[gentoo-dev] Re: Bugzilla - New Default Status Workflow

[Duncan]

Michał Górny posted on Mon, 07 Mar 2011 09:34:55 +0100 as excerpted:

> I'd say, both to UNCONFIRMED. Before, we used to set 'NEW' for newly-
> added bugs and didn't use UNCONFIRMED often. Right now, it seems logical
> to use UNCONFIRMED for the new bugs and let devs (re-)confirm them as
> necessary.

I've wondered about that choice in the past, but tended to simply leave it 
at the default (new), figuring (while having my doubts about viability) if 
they were both available and new was the default, unconfirmed must be an 
intentional downgrade available for users who weren't sure yet, and were 
going to follow up later after further tests.

> I think it might be even a good idea to limit the possibility of setting
> 'CONFIRMED' to devs. Otherwise, I see users bumping each of their bugs
> to 'CONFIRMED' immediately.

Is it possible to leave that option for users, but block it such that the 
original filer can't flip it?  If so, IMO that would be best, as a second 
user could then "confirm" it.

If it's not possible to block, unconfirmed could at least be made the 
default and the wranglers could complain about (and change) bugs filed as 
"confirmed" as they assign them.  The message should eventually get out, 
and having a second user confirm the bug could actually be quite useful 
for busy devs trying to prioritize their bugs.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Bugzilla - New Default Status Workflow

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 14:17:37 +0100
Christian Faulhammer <fauli@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Christian Ruppert <idl0r@gentoo.org>:
> > 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?
> 
>  New one, reopened is a bit pointless information on first glance.
>  History tells enough.

It's an important flag for a bug wrangler.


     jer

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla - New Default Status Workflow

["Paweł Hajdan, Jr."]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 698 bytes --]

On 3/7/11 11:13 AM, Brian Harring wrote:
> Re-read what he stated- it'll convert all existing NEW bugs to 
> CONFIRMED upon migration.  There's a fair number of bugs that are in a 
> NEW state, decent number that have sat for a long while too.  Those 
> bugs aren't 'confirmed'- just like with the new work flow where the 
> dev flips it from UNCONFIRMED to CONFIRMED, leave it to devs to flip 
> the current bugs from UNCONFIRMED to CONFIRMED rather than just 
> marking everything as CONFIRMED.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but it seems we have both
UNCONFIRMED and NEW in the "old" workflow. My understanding is that
CONFIRMED is the new name for NEW, which makes sense.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 194 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla - New Default Status Workflow

[Markos Chandras]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1155 bytes --]

On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 12:10:14PM +0100, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> On 3/7/11 11:13 AM, Brian Harring wrote:
> > Re-read what he stated- it'll convert all existing NEW bugs to 
> > CONFIRMED upon migration.  There's a fair number of bugs that are in a 
> > NEW state, decent number that have sat for a long while too.  Those 
> > bugs aren't 'confirmed'- just like with the new work flow where the 
> > dev flips it from UNCONFIRMED to CONFIRMED, leave it to devs to flip 
> > the current bugs from UNCONFIRMED to CONFIRMED rather than just 
> > marking everything as CONFIRMED.
> 
> Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but it seems we have both
> UNCONFIRMED and NEW in the "old" workflow. My understanding is that
> CONFIRMED is the new name for NEW, which makes sense.
> 
Sorry but no. NEW means "Ok I think this is a bug. Can you please take a
look?". CONFIRMED is "ok this is definitely a bug. I am able to
reproduce etc and will look into fixing it". The meaning is slightly
different but it is important to distinguish valid from invalid bugs.


Regards,
-- 
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla - New Default Status Workflow

[Mike Gilbert]

On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 6:15 AM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 12:10:14PM +0100, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
>> On 3/7/11 11:13 AM, Brian Harring wrote:
>> > Re-read what he stated- it'll convert all existing NEW bugs to
>> > CONFIRMED upon migration.  There's a fair number of bugs that are in a
>> > NEW state, decent number that have sat for a long while too.  Those
>> > bugs aren't 'confirmed'- just like with the new work flow where the
>> > dev flips it from UNCONFIRMED to CONFIRMED, leave it to devs to flip
>> > the current bugs from UNCONFIRMED to CONFIRMED rather than just
>> > marking everything as CONFIRMED.
>>
>> Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but it seems we have both
>> UNCONFIRMED and NEW in the "old" workflow. My understanding is that
>> CONFIRMED is the new name for NEW, which makes sense.
>>
> Sorry but no. NEW means "Ok I think this is a bug. Can you please take a
> look?". CONFIRMED is "ok this is definitely a bug. I am able to
> reproduce etc and will look into fixing it". The meaning is slightly
> different but it is important to distinguish valid from invalid bugs.
>
>
> Regards,
> --
> Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
>

If we were to switch to the new workflow, it probably would make sense
to switch the default new bug status to UNCONFIRMED. I'm not sure how
we would handle the existing bugs in NEW status.

Here are the workflow diagrams for our old Bugzilla and the new one. I
find pictures are a bit easier to follow.

Bugzilla 2.22:
http://www.bugzilla.org/docs/2.22/html/lifecycle.html

Bugzilla 4.0:
http://www.bugzilla.org/docs/4.0/en/html/lifecycle.html

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla - New Default Status Workflow

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 11:04:19 -0500
Mike Gilbert <floppymaster@gmail.com> wrote:

> If we were to switch to the new workflow, it probably would make sense
> to switch the default new bug status to UNCONFIRMED. I'm not sure how
> we would handle the existing bugs in NEW status.

I agree that new should now automatically be set to UNCONFIRMED when they are
not assigned yet (i.e. have been automatically assigned to
bug-wranglers) but to CONFIRMED when they are being assigned directly to their
respective maintainers.

For existing bugs, then, NEW bugs should be changed to UNCONFIRMED when they
are assigned to bug-wranglers, and to CONFIRMED when they have already
been assigned to their maintainers (irrespective of whether they are
actually confirmed or not or whether they are deemed to be actual bugs).

Status = NEW && Assignee = bug-wranglers -> Status = UNCONFIRMED
Status = NEW && Assignee = [maintainer] -> Status = CONFIRMED

> Here are the workflow diagrams for our old Bugzilla and the new one. I
> find pictures are a bit easier to follow.

Thanks, those really helped.

(The only problem I have with the new workflow is that bugs assigned to
bug-wranglers can usually be dealt with more quickly when it is obvious
that new information has been added, which is the case when a bug has
been closed as RESOLVED, NEEDINFO, after which reopening it will set it
to REOPENED. If we're going to lose that, then the b-w assigned list
loses some definition. But maybe bugzilla 4's support of the Changed
column can help there.)


     jer

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla - New Default Status Workflow

[Amadeusz Żołnowski]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 749 bytes --]

Excerpts from Jeroen Roovers's message of Thu Mar 10 20:42:29 +0100 2011:
> For existing bugs, then, NEW bugs should be changed to UNCONFIRMED
> when they are assigned to bug-wranglers, and to CONFIRMED when they
> have already been assigned to their maintainers (irrespective of
> whether they are actually confirmed or not or whether they are deemed
> to be actual bugs).
> 
> Status = NEW && Assignee = bug-wranglers -> Status = UNCONFIRMED
> Status = NEW && Assignee = [maintainer] -> Status = CONFIRMED

Who confirms the bug?  I would expect that CONFIRMED is set by the
package maintainer and the one who assigns bugs leaves the status.
-- 
Amadeusz Żołnowski

PGP key fpr: C700 CEDE 0C18 212E 49DA  4653 F013 4531 E1DB FAB5

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla - New Default Status Workflow

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 21:06:54 +0100
Amadeusz Żołnowski <aidecoe@gentoo.org> wrote:

> > Status = NEW && Assignee = bug-wranglers -> Status = UNCONFIRMED
> > Status = NEW && Assignee = [maintainer] -> Status = CONFIRMED
> 
> Who confirms the bug?  I would expect that CONFIRMED is set by the
> package maintainer and the one who assigns bugs leaves the status.

I was referring to existing bug reports, not new ones. New ones should
come in as UNCONFIRMED and would be changed to CONFIRMED when assigned
- bug wrangling does have this element of validation, you know.
Apparently when maintainers accept the bug, it changes to IN PROGRESS,
and when [s]he doesn't it should be resolved as invalid or duplicate
or whatever, but heck, maybe the flow chart should speak for itself.

Here is the URL again:

http://www.bugzilla.org/docs/4.0/en/html/lifecycle.html


     jer

[gentoo-dev] Re: Bugzilla - New Default Status Workflow

[Ryan Hill]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1446 bytes --]

On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 04:52:19 +0100
Jeroen Roovers <jer@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 21:06:54 +0100
> Amadeusz Żołnowski <aidecoe@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > > Status = NEW && Assignee = bug-wranglers -> Status = UNCONFIRMED
> > > Status = NEW && Assignee = [maintainer] -> Status = CONFIRMED
> > 
> > Who confirms the bug?  I would expect that CONFIRMED is set by the
> > package maintainer and the one who assigns bugs leaves the status.
> 
> I was referring to existing bug reports, not new ones. New ones should
> come in as UNCONFIRMED and would be changed to CONFIRMED when assigned
> - bug wrangling does have this element of validation, you know.
> Apparently when maintainers accept the bug, it changes to IN PROGRESS,
> and when [s]he doesn't it should be resolved as invalid or duplicate
> or whatever, but heck, maybe the flow chart should speak for itself.

Bug wranglers should only mark bugs CONFIRMED if they can personally
reproduce them.  If no one has produced the bug other than the original
poster then that's the very definition of UNCONFIRMED.

Or maybe you're thinking CONFIRMED as in "I confirm this is a bug report and
not a lunch order"?


-- 
fonts, gcc-porting,                  it makes no sense how it makes no sense
toolchain, wxwidgets                           but i'll take it free anytime
@ gentoo.org                EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla - New Default Status Workflow

[Christian Ruppert]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1084 bytes --]

So once again:

https://bugs.gentoo.org/docs/en/html/lifecycle.html

*Every* new bug filed by a user without editbugs will have "UNCONFIRMED"
(old NEW) as fixed status.
*If* we don't enable the UNCONFIRMED status at all then it will
CONFIRMED as default but we would enable the UNCONFIRMED status.

Bug wranglers can then assign the bug and they also *can* mark it as
CONFIRMED *if* they *can* confirm it.
The maintainer may change the status to IN_PROGRESS (old ASSIGNED)
afterwards.

The snipped of my first mail may be a bit confusing... It just means:
NEW will become CONFIRMED, NEW has been fully replaced by CONFIRMED so
NEW is gone but CONFIRMED is *not* the new default status. CONFIRMED
would/could be the default for everybody with editbugs.
ASSIGNED gone, replacement: IN_PROGRESS,
REOPENED gone,
CLOSED gone. VERIFIED will be added.

So I think we should convert...

-- 
Regards,
Christian Ruppert
Role: Gentoo Linux developer, Bugzilla administrator and Infrastructure
member
Fingerprint: EEB1 C341 7C84 B274 6C59 F243 5EAB 0C62 B427 ABC8


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 554 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla - New Default Status Workflow

[Panagiotis Christopoulos]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1764 bytes --]

On 16:07 Thu 28 Apr     , Christian Ruppert wrote:
> So once again:
> 
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/docs/en/html/lifecycle.html
Ok, so, we should choose one of two ways:
1. The old one [1]
2. The new one [2]

From my point of view, the problem currently is that the ways above are
mixed. A user files a bug. The bug has UNCONFIRMED status. Then, someone
with editbugs priveleges tries to assign the bug. He has the NEW, ASSIGNED
and RESOLVED options to change its status. A bug is assigned to a team/
maintainter. The maintainer can change its status from NEW to ASSIGNED
or RESOLVED. The maintainer marks the bug as RESOLVED. He can change
that status again to UNCONFIRMED, REOPENED, VERIFIED or CLOSED. Even the
RESOLVED <something> can be FIXED, INVALID, WONTFIX, DUPLICATE,
WORKSFORME, CANTFIX, NEEDINFO, TEST-REQUEST, UPSTREAM, OBSOLETE. Someone
would say that CANTFIX and UPSTREAM could be merged. The same with
WONTFIX and OBSOLETE (it's a theory, I don't say we should do it).
> ... 
> REOPENED gone,
> CLOSED gone. VERIFIED will be added.
What is the meaning of VERIFIED? (I also never understood the meaning of
the old CLOSED). 
> 
> So I think we should convert...
I think we should convert to the new [2] model too.

The only reason I asked about the whole "workflow thing" on irc was because
sometimes I get confused by all these options. I believe we should
simplify them and update the bug-wranglers guide accordingly.

[1] http://www.bugzilla.org/docs/3.6/en/html/lifecycle.html
[2] http://www.bugzilla.org/docs/4.0/en/html/lifecycle.html

ps: To everyone who helped with the upgrade of bugzie: Thanks guys! I
can understand it wasn't easy. 
-- 
Panagiotis Christopoulos ( pchrist )
    ( Gentoo Lisp Project )

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla - New Default Status Workflow

[Alex Alexander]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1451 bytes --]

On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 04:07:24PM +0200, Christian Ruppert wrote:
> So once again:
> 
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/docs/en/html/lifecycle.html
> 
> *Every* new bug filed by a user without editbugs will have "UNCONFIRMED"
> (old NEW) as fixed status.
> *If* we don't enable the UNCONFIRMED status at all then it will
> CONFIRMED as default but we would enable the UNCONFIRMED status.
> 
> Bug wranglers can then assign the bug and they also *can* mark it as
> CONFIRMED *if* they *can* confirm it.
> The maintainer may change the status to IN_PROGRESS (old ASSIGNED)
> afterwards.
> 
> The snipped of my first mail may be a bit confusing... It just means:
> NEW will become CONFIRMED, NEW has been fully replaced by CONFIRMED so
> NEW is gone but CONFIRMED is *not* the new default status. CONFIRMED
> would/could be the default for everybody with editbugs.
> ASSIGNED gone, replacement: IN_PROGRESS,
> REOPENED gone,
> CLOSED gone. VERIFIED will be added.
> 
> So I think we should convert...

+1

The new workflow makes more sense.

I would mark any new bug as UNCONFIRMED by default, having editbugs
doesn't ensure your bugs will be confirmed.


> -- 
> Regards,
> Christian Ruppert
> Role: Gentoo Linux developer, Bugzilla administrator and Infrastructure
> member
> Fingerprint: EEB1 C341 7C84 B274 6C59 F243 5EAB 0C62 B427 ABC8


-- 
Alex Alexander | wired
+ Gentoo Linux Developer
++ www.linuxized.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla - New Default Status Workflow

[Peter Volkov]

В Чтв, 28/04/2011 в 18:06 +0300, Panagiotis Christopoulos пишет:
> On 16:07 Thu 28 Apr, Christian Ruppert wrote:
> > So once again:
> > 
> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/docs/en/html/lifecycle.html

I'm all for new lifecycle.

> > CLOSED gone. VERIFIED will be added.
> What is the meaning of VERIFIED? (I also never understood the meaning of
> the old CLOSED). 

The user who had bug checked (verified) that it does not exists any
more.

-- 
Peter.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla - New Default Status Workflow

[Christian Ruppert]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1303 bytes --]

On 04/28/2011 04:07 PM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
> So once again:
> 
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/docs/en/html/lifecycle.html
> 
> *Every* new bug filed by a user without editbugs will have "UNCONFIRMED"
> (old NEW) as fixed status.
> *If* we don't enable the UNCONFIRMED status at all then it will
> CONFIRMED as default but we would enable the UNCONFIRMED status.
> 
> Bug wranglers can then assign the bug and they also *can* mark it as
> CONFIRMED *if* they *can* confirm it.
> The maintainer may change the status to IN_PROGRESS (old ASSIGNED)
> afterwards.
> 
> The snipped of my first mail may be a bit confusing... It just means:
> NEW will become CONFIRMED, NEW has been fully replaced by CONFIRMED so
> NEW is gone but CONFIRMED is *not* the new default status. CONFIRMED
> would/could be the default for everybody with editbugs.
> ASSIGNED gone, replacement: IN_PROGRESS,
> REOPENED gone,
> CLOSED gone. VERIFIED will be added.
> 
> So I think we should convert...
> 

I think I'll convert the workflow in about 24h if nobody really
complains. There is more positive feedback anyway.

-- 
Regards,
Christian Ruppert
Role: Gentoo Linux developer, Bugzilla administrator and Infrastructure
member
Fingerprint: EEB1 C341 7C84 B274 6C59 F243 5EAB 0C62 B427 ABC8


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 554 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla - New Default Status Workflow

[Maciej Mrozowski]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1590 bytes --]

On Thursday 28 of April 2011 16:07:24 Christian Ruppert wrote:
> So once again:
> 
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/docs/en/html/lifecycle.html
> 
> *Every* new bug filed by a user without editbugs will have "UNCONFIRMED"
> (old NEW) as fixed status.
> *If* we don't enable the UNCONFIRMED status at all then it will
> CONFIRMED as default but we would enable the UNCONFIRMED status.
> 
> Bug wranglers can then assign the bug and they also *can* mark it as
> CONFIRMED *if* they *can* confirm it.
> The maintainer may change the status to IN_PROGRESS (old ASSIGNED)
> afterwards.
> 
> The snipped of my first mail may be a bit confusing... It just means:
> NEW will become CONFIRMED, NEW has been fully replaced by CONFIRMED so
> NEW is gone but CONFIRMED is *not* the new default status. CONFIRMED
> would/could be the default for everybody with editbugs.
> ASSIGNED gone, replacement: IN_PROGRESS,
> REOPENED gone,

+1 (with comment, see below)

It makes a lot more sense (and it's free from enterprisey meaning wrt ASSIGNED 
and such)

I'd leave the default resolution status for newly created bug as UNCONFIRMED 
also for editbugs-accounts. It's not that it cannot be changed to CONFIRMED in 
'new bug' extended form.

> CLOSED gone. VERIFIED will be added.

I have a little worry thought (that may have been addressed somewhere in this 
thread) - why is VERIFIED being added? To me it's not needed at all and there 
are people who seem to have the same opinion:

http://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org/msg39023.html

-- 
regards
MM

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla - New Default Status Workflow

[Christian Ruppert]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1420 bytes --]

On 04/30/2011 10:40 AM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
> On 04/28/2011 04:07 PM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
>> So once again:
>>
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/docs/en/html/lifecycle.html
>>
>> *Every* new bug filed by a user without editbugs will have "UNCONFIRMED"
>> (old NEW) as fixed status.
>> *If* we don't enable the UNCONFIRMED status at all then it will
>> CONFIRMED as default but we would enable the UNCONFIRMED status.
>>
>> Bug wranglers can then assign the bug and they also *can* mark it as
>> CONFIRMED *if* they *can* confirm it.
>> The maintainer may change the status to IN_PROGRESS (old ASSIGNED)
>> afterwards.
>>
>> The snipped of my first mail may be a bit confusing... It just means:
>> NEW will become CONFIRMED, NEW has been fully replaced by CONFIRMED so
>> NEW is gone but CONFIRMED is *not* the new default status. CONFIRMED
>> would/could be the default for everybody with editbugs.
>> ASSIGNED gone, replacement: IN_PROGRESS,
>> REOPENED gone,
>> CLOSED gone. VERIFIED will be added.
>>
>> So I think we should convert...
>>
> 
> I think I'll convert the workflow in about 24h if nobody really
> complains. There is more positive feedback anyway.
> 

Done. The new workflow is online.

-- 
Regards,
Christian Ruppert
Role: Gentoo Linux developer, Bugzilla administrator and Infrastructure
member
Fingerprint: EEB1 C341 7C84 B274 6C59 F243 5EAB 0C62 B427 ABC8


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 554 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla - New Default Status Workflow

[Christian Ruppert]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1655 bytes --]

On 05/01/2011 11:39 AM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
> On 04/30/2011 10:40 AM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
>> On 04/28/2011 04:07 PM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
>>> So once again:
>>>
>>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/docs/en/html/lifecycle.html
>>>
>>> *Every* new bug filed by a user without editbugs will have "UNCONFIRMED"
>>> (old NEW) as fixed status.
>>> *If* we don't enable the UNCONFIRMED status at all then it will
>>> CONFIRMED as default but we would enable the UNCONFIRMED status.
>>>
>>> Bug wranglers can then assign the bug and they also *can* mark it as
>>> CONFIRMED *if* they *can* confirm it.
>>> The maintainer may change the status to IN_PROGRESS (old ASSIGNED)
>>> afterwards.
>>>
>>> The snipped of my first mail may be a bit confusing... It just means:
>>> NEW will become CONFIRMED, NEW has been fully replaced by CONFIRMED so
>>> NEW is gone but CONFIRMED is *not* the new default status. CONFIRMED
>>> would/could be the default for everybody with editbugs.
>>> ASSIGNED gone, replacement: IN_PROGRESS,
>>> REOPENED gone,
>>> CLOSED gone. VERIFIED will be added.
>>>
>>> So I think we should convert...
>>>
>>
>> I think I'll convert the workflow in about 24h if nobody really
>> complains. There is more positive feedback anyway.
>>
> 
> Done. The new workflow is online.
> 

Before I forgot.. You may have to update your saved searches in
Bugzilla. In the most cases its just that "UNCONFIRMED" has not been
selected.

-- 
Regards,
Christian Ruppert
Role: Gentoo Linux developer, Bugzilla administrator and Infrastructure
member
Fingerprint: EEB1 C341 7C84 B274 6C59 F243 5EAB 0C62 B427 ABC8


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 554 bytes --]