Re: Status of Bugzilla?

[Daniel Berlin <dan at dberlin dot org>]

On Sun, 10 Feb 2002, Joseph S. Myers wrote:

> Observations on the states of bugs in Bugzilla:
Note that i haven't made changes to these yet until we have agreement on 
the states, which we didn't seem to have last time.

> 
> >From the definitions, it looks like "UNCONFIRMED" means what GNATS has as 
> "open", and "NEW" means "analyzed".  So new email submissions should start 
> in "UNCONFIRMED".
> 
> We don't have the QA system for verifying bug fixes implicit in the 
> difference between "RESOLVED", "VERIFIED" and "CLOSED".  Thus, these 
> should all be merged into one "CLOSED".


> 
> "WONTFIX" isn't a proper way to resolve a bug; we shouldn't have it.  
> "LATER" and "REMIND" are both analogues of "suspended"; I think just one
> would suffice.  Furthermore, "suspended" indicates an unfixed bug, not a
> fixed one, so such bugs should show up on default searches, as should
> UNCONFIRMED.  This may mean not marking them RESOLVED/..., but having a
> new status value to cover nonresolutions that we now have as "feedback"  
> and "suspended", or treating those as status values rather than
> resolutions (which I think would be the better option, meaning that
> UNCONFIRMED, NEW, ASSIGNED, REOPENED, SUSPENDED, FEEDBACK and CLOSED would
> be the statuses, and FIXED, INVALID, DUPLICATE, WORKSFORME the
> resolutions).
> 
> Can we have some milestones to play with when the database is next
> converted from GNATS?  (At least, a 3.1 milestone, to which "high"  
> priority bugs are assigned, but maybe some more.  Note that incoming
> "high" priority bugs - from old gccbug versions, current gccbug doesn't
> allow them - shouldn't get milestones assigned to them, just those
> currently in GNATS.)

Huh?
What bugs exactly do you want assigned to a 3.1 milestone?

Those with a version of 3.1 and a priority of high?
Or all those with a version of 3.1.
But not any bugs submitted through email?

> 
> (Previously noted:) the summary version list should distinguish 2.96 
> (redhat) from other 2.96, and 3.0-pre from 3.0 release.

Okeydokey.

> 
> (Previously noted:) the full version string from bug reports (new and in
> GNATS) should be preserved, as well as the summary version for searches.

I'll make sure it gets into the comment text.

> (Previously noted:) the Class field from bug reports is useful and should
> be preserved.  (OTOH, I doubt that Organization is, and Submitter-Id
> surely is not.)

We also didn't have real agreement on what to do about 
priority/severity/class, so i didn't to anything.

> 
>