Launchpad bug statuses

[Scott Kitterman]

On Tuesday 02 October 2007 15:22, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 02:51:48PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > On Tuesday 02 October 2007 14:04, Christian Robottom Reis wrote:
> > > I've written a piece at
> > >
> > >     http://news.launchpad.net/general/of-bugs-and-statuses
> > >
> > > that describes the intended semantics and existing behaviour for
> > > Launchpad bugs. I'd love to hear your questions and comments about
> > > cases which we don't handle well so we can better improve the way the
> > > tool works.
> >
> > I find it odd that you include a comittment to fix in the Triaged
> > definition. Before reading your posting, I would have thought the
> > distinction between Confirmed and Triaged was if it had been root caused.
> >
> > If commitment to fix is included in Triaged, then I think Ubuntu needs to
> > consider further restricting it.  I'm certainly going to go back an push
> > any bugs I marked Triaged back to Confirmed if I don't intend to fix
> > them.
>
> I had gathered (after speaking with Brian Murray) that the distinction
> was that Confirmed means that it's a confirmed bug, but may not yet have
> enough information for a developer to work on, while Triaged means that
> a developer or bug triager has reviewed it and verified that there is
> sufficient info to proceed with development work.  This is how I've been
> using the state.
>
> I don't think it's good to tack on a "commitment to fix" notion to
> this.  In hospital settings, "Triaged" means you can see the doctor, but
> not a commitment that you'll be cured.
>
> Further, we already have a good way to indicate a commitment to fix via
> the milestone feature, which is much more fine grained, since we can
> also give a rough indication of *when* it is targeted to get fixed.  I
> think suggesting that Triaged == Commit to Fix is both unnecessary and
> potentially misleading to the reporter.
>
Agreed.  I think that would be much better than the current definition.

Scott K