On 2008-09-24, 15:26 GMT, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> Using ON_DEV instead of the old meaning of ASSIGNED just means
> that you would force changing the meaning of ASSIGNED for all
> of the other product processes (such as RHEL) otherwise it
> would still mean that ASSIGNED on RHEL means completely
> different thing than ASSIGNED on Fedora. And ASSIGNED on RHEL
> would be equivalent to ON_DEV on Fedora. This doesn't seem to
> me as good thing.
a) Actually, I have heard complaints about confusion of meaning
of ASSIGNED only from few people.
Redefining ASSIGNED to your taste would mean that we have to go
through all ASSIGNED bugs and decide about each of them whether
they should be ASSIGNED or ON_DEV.
b) I cannot find any definition of ASSIGNED other than what's
FESCO decision on fedoraproject wiki and this in bugzilla:
ASSIGNED
This bug is well described, triaged, and assigned to the
proper person, but not fixed. From here, additional triage
can cause a bug to be given to another person or component,
flagged as needinfo, or moved to CLOSED. Otherwise, a bug
will be fixed and moved into MODIFIED.
I don't see here anything else, than what I think ASSIGNED means
(and what you were asking me to push into ASSIGNED and what we
agreed on IRC ON_DEV is good for).
Could you point me to some other URL with more official
definition for RHEL, please?
> Adding a CONFIRMED (status or flag or keyword) or reusing ON_DEV for the
> triaged meaning changes just the triagers work and nothing else.
And yes introducing ON_DEV for developers changes just their work
(and by far not all of them) and nothing else ... ;-).
Peace be with you :)
Matěj
--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
