kshep0010 at gmail.com
Fri Feb 26 17:14:47 UTC 2016
At my organization we use the fixed status for what you are describing.
Once a bug has been fixed someone has to go in and verify, once the
verification has been done, we update the status to CLOSED Verified. If the
bug is not actually fixed we will update the status to Open, Verification
Failed. Typically, it's better to name statuses after the action that has
just taken place (which sets the current state) as opposed to a status that
describes action required to move forward. The flow is then built and
shared with your team in a document.
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 8:21 AM, <jwalker at mozilla.com> wrote:
> I think I'd like to proposing a new bug status: WAITING
> WAITING is a status that can be included either as a closed or open
> status, but will probably be treated as closed in most cases.
> WAITING bugs have one special property, when a comment is added to a
> WAITING bug, then it is automatically placed into the OPEN state.
> Broadly, this allows people to ignore bugs that are waiting on someone
> The new WAITING status solves 2 related problems:
> 1. The need to follow up on needinfo? items.
> A bug has no STR or more info was needed. You NI? the creator, but the bug
> still shows up on searches and you still need to close the bug after some
> length of time. With a status of WAITING however, this becomes automatic.
> 2. Closing a 'good' bug.
> A bug has been raised that is a good idea, but you know that it's never
> going to happen unless someone contributes a patch, and you don't want the
> bug to turn up in searches unless someone does chime in. So you add a
> comment about welcoming contributions and set the status to WAITING
> My question is really a technical one. Is this possible, and how hard is
> dev-apps-bugzilla mailing list
> dev-apps-bugzilla at lists.mozilla.org
> To view or change your list settings, click here:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the developers