From: Andrew Dunbar (hippietrail@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Jun 18 2002 - 23:04:39 EDT
--- Jesper Skov <jskov@zoftcorp.dk> wrote: > On Tue,
2002-06-18 at 23:22, Joaquin Cuenca Abela
> wrote:
> >
> > --- Jesper Skov <jskov@zoftcorp.dk> wrote:
> > >
> > > confirmed. This value defaults to 0, causing
> created
> > > bugs to be
> > > auto-confirmed.
> > >
> > > I raised the value to 40.
> >
> > what? Is it a consiration to prevent new bugs?
>
> No, the intention is to see new Bugs created as
> UNCONFIRMED.
>
> > IMHO 0 or 1 would be enough. Why a number so
> high?
>
> Because users could then confirm their own Bugs by
> casting all their
> votes on them.
I seem to remember a discussion some months ago where
we resolved to prevent people from voting on their
own bugs anyway. What became of this?
> However, having just tested it, it does not appear
> to make a difference.
> Looking at the way BugZilla 2.16rc2 handles Bug
> transitions, I think
> that's probably OK: we should probably ignore
> UNCONFIRMED in the future,
> and just use NEW as the new default state (what used
> to be SUBMITTED),
> and ASSIGNED as the new accept state (what used to
> be OPEN).
I would like something like this:
User reports a bug -> UNCONFIRMED
Developer reproduces it -> NEW
Developer decides to fix -> ACCEPTED
Possibly a shortcut for bugs discovered by a developer
to go straight to NEW but that's not important.
Andrew.
> Jesper
>
>
>
> Jesper
>
=====
http://linguaphile.sourceforge.net http://www.abisource.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jun 18 2002 - 23:07:01 EDT