Re: fuzz failures not generating bugs

[Evan Huus <eapache () gmail com>]

On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Bill Meier <wmeier () newsguy com> wrote:

> On 11/30/2012 4:08 PM, Evan Huus wrote:
>
> >     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.
> +1
>
> I would also note that presumably the status can just go from UNCONFIRMED
> to RESOLVED if a bug is just immediately fixed upon reviewing.


I would hope so.


>  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 :)
> +1, I think.
>
> How does the incomplete status get updated when the additional information
> is provided ? manually ?
>
> If manually, is this OK in practice or do peole forget to update the
> status ?

The submitter sets it back to NEW (or UNCONFIRMED) manually when they
provide the requested information. People don't forget, because bugs in
this state expire after 60 days otherwise. It's a great method for keeping
the bug list short :)

___________________________________________________________________________
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