On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 04:52:19 +0100
Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> 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?
On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 14:17:37 +0100
Christian Faulhammer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Christian Ruppert :
> > 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 informatio
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
> necessar
Hi,
Christian Ruppert :
> 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, Gento
