Wireshark · Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] fuzz failures not generating bugs

[Evan Huus <eapache@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Gerald Combs <gerald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 11/30/12 12:01 PM, Bill Meier wrote:

> Assuming that the conversion script mentioned in
>
> https://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