On 5/25/05, Miloslav Trmac <mitr@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > This is also abusing the bugzilla resolution status; if somebody > looks for a bug he is experiencing and finds it, he sees > "CURRENTRELEASE" when in fact it is "WE-WISH-IT-WERE-CURRENTRELEASE". > NOTABUG nor WONTFIX is perfect, but either provides more correct > information than CURRENTRELEASE. Mike has a very valid point though, perhaps the value of technically precise categorization is not as valuable as sloppier categorization that promotes a skewed happy-happy joy-joy perception and encourages a 'work with us' attitude. Is the bugzilla database aiming to be a historical statitician's research treasure trove, or a medium by which developers and users attempt to communicate day-to-day, week-to-week? I've seen too many users blow a fuse at seeing wontfix or notabug as a resolution to something they filed, souring them to the bug filing experience because they come away with a perception that their issue is being completely ignored. Talking these potentially valuable contributors down from the ledge has become far less thrilling an experience over time. Instead of continually tying to fix novice, psychologically fragile perceptions of malicious intent of certain bug resolution states. it might be more effective to simply lie about the resolution state to encourage flow of information. The terse language of the finite resolution namespace can be a bit harsh. If I ruled the world, I'd probably forcible dictate the creation of "RETEST" as a companion to "RESOLVED", so I could have "RETEST" "CURRENTRELEASE" for many of the situations Mike has described. legacy of course complicates the issue for security issues legacy claims interest in. -jef"'The Whiz Man' will never fit like 'The Whiz Kid' did"spaleta
