Posted by rmiddle on July 10, 2008 at 5:29pm
Jump to:
| Project: | Drupal.org webmasters |
| Component: | Textual improvements |
| Category: | feature request |
| Priority: | normal |
| Assigned: | Unassigned |
| Status: | closed (duplicate) |
Issue Summary
I was just working on a bug were it was confirmed that it was a bug but I hadn't had a patch yet but there was no status that made since to me to put the issue into to alert others that it is a confirmed bug but that no code is ready yet. I recommend we add active (confirmed) or just plan confirmed to the status list.
Thanks
Robert
Comments
#1
I believe that this part of the line of discussion which resulted in the "active (needs more info)" status.
Please see #102485: Proposal: New status field
#2
I don't agree that #102485: Proposal: New status field covers this issue. In fact this is the opposite of what they are requesting. In that cause this was a way to tell people that we need more input before it can be fixed. My suggestion is a status that says. I don't need anymore info I can see the problem and repeat it but haven't yet fixed it.
Thanks
Robert
#3
Ok.
Your workflow is:
New issue -> 'active'
I don't know how to repeat this bug -> 'active (needs more info)'
Understood and confirmed that this is a bug -> 'active (confirmed)'
I think that we're fine with the current workflow which is:
New issue -> 'active' (unless it's not consistently repeatable, in which case an enlightened submitter might start it at "needs more info").
I don't know how to repeat this bug -> 'active (needs more info)'
Understood and confirmed that this is a bug -> 'active'
Either way, we should have a better title
#4
Agreed a better title. I think the 1st work flow makes more since. If more then one person is working on the issue queue that makes it much easier to decide what to work on when someone has gone though and confirmed the issue first.
Thanks
Robert
#5
I was about to open a feature request for a 'confirmed (with test)' status - for bugs which have tests, but no valid patch yet, then greggles directed me here. 'confirmed (with test) a bit restrictive for well written bug reports by people can't write tests, or bugs where there's no obvious way to write a test for it at all though.
So how about, to active (confirmed) or active (steps to reproduce). Ubuntu use 'triaged' to mean "given us logs/debugging output" so active (triaged) might be another option although i've personally not seen it used elsewhere.
Either way, an active++ status would help to promote bugs that we know are 100% valid, in the same way active (needs more info) helps to filter out bugs that likely aren't. It also gives us a place to put bugs with tests but no patches - since 'patch needs work/review' isn't accurate for those cases.
#6
greggles in irc suggests 'active (steps to reproduce/test)' - which is probably closest to what we're trying to get at.
#7
I'm in favor of this too, but I don't think the wording is quite right yet... how about a minor modification to "active (with steps to reproduce/test)"
#8
how about:
- active (reproducable)
it doesn't matter how, with tests or steps, but it is reproducable.
#9
Reproducible works for me.
Thanks
Robert
#10
#11
Older and more in depth discussion of basically the same thing (phrased in the inverse):
#171350: Reorganise project issue statuses