Wireshark mailing list archives
Re: fuzz failures not generating bugs
From: Evan Huus <eapache () gmail com>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 16:08:34 -0500
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Gerald Combs <gerald () wireshark org> wrote:
On 11/30/12 12:01 PM, Bill Meier wrote:Assuming that the conversion script mentioned inhttps://bugzillaupdate.wordpress.com/2010/07/06/bugzilla-4-0-has-a-new-default-status-workflow/will be run, it appears that the changes in the current status values will be as follows: “NEW” will become “CONFIRMED” “ASSIGNED” will become “IN_PROGRESS” “REOPENED” will become “CONFIRMED” (and the “REOPENED” status will be removed) “CLOSED” will become “VERIFIED” (and the “CLOSED” status will be removed)That's correct.Also, I'm guessing that, after the update, the initial status of a bug will now be "CONFIRMED" (which corresponds with our current initial status of "New"). Or: will we now start with "UNCONFIRMED" ?UNCONFIRMED has to be enabled in the configuration, otherwise the initial status is CONFIRMED.That being said, I can imagine that starting with "Confirmed" might cause some puzzlement from those used to seeing "NEW" as the initial status.Would UNCONFIRMED be less confusing than CONFIRMED?
I would think so. It's bothered me for a while that we didn't have a way to distinguish between "brand new, nobody has looked at it yet" bugs and "solution identified, but nobody wants to work on it" bugs. Separating our current NEW bugs into either UNCONFIRMED or CONFIRMED states seems like the right way to do that. While on the topic, I'd also love an "INCOMPLETE" state like Launchpad (for bugs that are waiting on the submitter for more information -- we seem to have a fair number of those), but I suppose one thing at a time :) Cheers, Evan
___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe
Current thread:
- fuzz failures not generating bugs Jeff Morriss (Nov 30)
- Re: fuzz failures not generating bugs Evan Huus (Nov 30)
- Re: fuzz failures not generating bugs Gerald Combs (Nov 30)
- Re: fuzz failures not generating bugs Bill Meier (Nov 30)
- Re: fuzz failures not generating bugs Gerald Combs (Nov 30)
- Re: fuzz failures not generating bugs Evan Huus (Nov 30)
- Re: fuzz failures not generating bugs Bill Meier (Nov 30)
- Re: fuzz failures not generating bugs Guy Harris (Nov 30)
- Re: fuzz failures not generating bugs Evan Huus (Nov 30)
- Re: fuzz failures not generating bugs Guy Harris (Nov 30)
- Re: fuzz failures not generating bugs Evan Huus (Nov 30)
- Re: fuzz failures not generating bugs Gerald Combs (Nov 30)
- Re: fuzz failures not generating bugs Evan Huus (Nov 30)