[Ns-developers] bugzilla proposals

Tom Henderson tomh at tomh.org
Tue Mar 27 11:46:38 PDT 2012


On 21.03.2012 09:14, Vedran Miletić wrote:
> 2012/3/21 Tom Henderson <tomh at tomh.org>:
>> Tommaso, Daniel, and I had a discussion today about modifications to 
>> the
>> tracker, which we plan to discuss at the meeting but are first 
>> socializing
>> on the list.
>>
>> - we need a clearer means to detect when a patch is sitting ready to 
>> be
>> applied for a bug fix, but just needs review.  We discussed adding a 
>> new
>> status field 'PATCH PENDING' for this state.
>
> +1
>
>> - we should move bugs out of NEW state to either ASSIGNED, 
>> UNCONFIRMED, or
>> VERIFIED.  A bug in ASSIGNED state means that the assignee has 
>> agreed to
>> produce a patch; i.e. it is not valid to assign to ns-bugs at isi.edu. 
>>  When in
>> UNCONFIRMED or VERIFIED but not assigned, the assignee could either 
>> be the
>> existing ns-bugs at isi.edu, or a new address ns-unassigned at isi.edu, 
>> which
>> would need to be created (I might suggest to just reuse 
>> ns-bugs at isi.edu
>> unless a reason is provided otherwise). It could be implied that 
>> state
>> 'VERIFIED' means we want a patch, or we could instead use a more 
>> explicit
>> 'PATCH WANTED' status.
>
> +1 for 'PATCH WANTED'
>


I learned that "VERIFIED" is reserved for closed bugs, and is intended 
for Q/A team to verify the resolution.  I introduced a "CONFIRMED" state 
instead that corresponds to Open status.

As a result, I added three new states corresponding to "Open" status:
  - CONFIRMED
  - PATCH WANTED
  - PATCH PENDING

and I have started to use these states in the tracker, and we can see 
how it goes.

- Tom




More information about the Ns-developers mailing list