Launchpad bug statuses

[Bryce Harrington]

On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 02:51:48PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Tuesday 02 October 2007 14:04, Christian Robottom Reis wrote:
> > I've written a piece at
> >
> >     http://news.launchpad.net/general/of-bugs-and-statuses
> >
> > that describes the intended semantics and existing behaviour for
> > Launchpad bugs. I'd love to hear your questions and comments about cases
> > which we don't handle well so we can better improve the way the tool
> > works.
> 
> I find it odd that you include a comittment to fix in the Triaged definition.  
> Before reading your posting, I would have thought the distinction between 
> Confirmed and Triaged was if it had been root caused.
> 
> If commitment to fix is included in Triaged, then I think Ubuntu needs to 
> consider further restricting it.  I'm certainly going to go back an push any 
> bugs I marked Triaged back to Confirmed if I don't intend to fix them.

I had gathered (after speaking with Brian Murray) that the distinction
was that Confirmed means that it's a confirmed bug, but may not yet have
enough information for a developer to work on, while Triaged means that
a developer or bug triager has reviewed it and verified that there is
sufficient info to proceed with development work.  This is how I've been
using the state.

I don't think it's good to tack on a "commitment to fix" notion to
this.  In hospital settings, "Triaged" means you can see the doctor, but
not a commitment that you'll be cured.

Further, we already have a good way to indicate a commitment to fix via
the milestone feature, which is much more fine grained, since we can
also give a rough indication of *when* it is targeted to get fixed.  I
think suggesting that Triaged == Commit to Fix is both unnecessary and
potentially misleading to the reporter.

Bryce