From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1PwG8p-0006MN-0l for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 06 Mar 2011 15:45:07 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 10DE6E05AF; Sun, 6 Mar 2011 15:44:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C80B1C004 for ; Sun, 6 Mar 2011 15:44:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.109] (fi122.internetdsl.tpnet.pl [80.53.34.122]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: phajdan.jr) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DE9B31B4088 for ; Sun, 6 Mar 2011 15:44:29 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4D73ABD5.8090105@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2011 16:44:21 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?IlBhd2XFgiBIYWpkYW4sIEpyLiI=?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla - New Default Status Workflow References: <4D737C71.1040806@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <4D737C71.1040806@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig90B356F841511A8E1278B484" X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: a6b0ccb509c4cad5297ee38a8a421ea0 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig90B356F841511A8E1278B484 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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? Pawe=C5=82 Hajdan, Jr. --------------enig90B356F841511A8E1278B484 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAk1zq9kACgkQuUQtlDBCeQLaRgCfeaFOFOtg0U5LyFRl7pcy6E40 LHYAni6o0VqS1FckU6UERDnEtI/UP6Ha =QafR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig90B356F841511A8E1278B484--