On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 18:56 -0700, John Poelstra wrote: > > We'd be interested in thoughts - negative, positive, whatever - on the > > idea. Thanks! > This has been discussed at length before. I believe the initial > reluctance was changing the set process for a handful of people that > wanted to do things differently and then trying to keep track of that. > One major reason for not changing the state definitions was that the > Fedora usage of the bug states was the same as RHEL. > > At one time I thought the "keyword" approach was a good idea and it > still seems to make a lot of good sense... I can't remember why we > didn't move forward with it, but as you explain, it seems like a good > compromise. I think it feels like a bigger change than it is. In fact, I think the case may well be the same for RHEL; RHEL seems to use ASSIGNED in the same way Fedora does (i.e. it's abused to mean 'Triaged'). That makes it a bit double-edged - it's not a big change to make, but it's also not a big deal not to change... -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
