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 "
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
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 th
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
> C
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? (
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 al
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
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.
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 21:06:54 +0100
Amadeusz Żołnowski 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
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
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 11:04:19 -0500
Mike Gilbert 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
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 6:15 AM, Markos Chandras 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 bu
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
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 n
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
> g
On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 13:22:09 +0100
Christian Ruppert 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. Ri
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, an
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, a
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Ulrich Mueller 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
> take
> 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
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].
>>
>>
>> This will convert the status of all bugs using the following
>> system:
>>
>
>> "REOPENED" will become "CONFIRMED"
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].
>
>
> This will convert the status of all bugs using the following
> system:
>
> "NEW" will become "CONFIRMED"
This seems mildly insane; sure you didn'
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Christian Ruppert 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 at
On 03/06/2011 02:22 PM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> in bugzilla-4.x they did change the "Status Workflow"[1].
>
>
> This will convert the status of all bugs using the following
> system:
>
> "REOPENED" will become "CONFIRMED" (and the "REOPENED" status will be
> removed)
We wou
Hey guys,
in bugzilla-4.x they did change the "Status Workflow"[1].
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)
"CLO
25 matches
Mail list logo
