[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: kde-community
Subject: Re: Improving Bugzilla Status Names
From: Andrew Crouthamel <andrew () crouthamel ! us>
Date: 2018-09-30 15:56:32
Message-ID: PzXEPwhxPXjKnruC4gr5xeXnY6YVFByWctolB5pgIHfYlpMZS5sMTDBt2Nj9JQextNJnwqoIXgE6JF2PX8nsOOsXW3o10DKt5vbWw8ojIJ0= () crouthamel ! us
[Download RAW message or body]
[Attachment #2 (text/plain)]
I like OPENED as well.
-------- Original Message --------
On Sep 29, 2018, 6:17 PM, Ben Cooksley wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 9:44 AM Valorie Zimmerman
> <valorie.zimmerman@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 1:48 AM Luigi Toscano <luigi.toscano@tiscali.it> wrote:
>>>
>>> Kai Uwe Broulik ha scritto:
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > > Here is my follow-up change recommendation based on feedback and research:
>>> > >
>>> > > UNCONFIRMED -> REPORTED
>>> > > WONTFIX -> INTENTIONAL
>>> > > INVALID -> NOTABUG
>>> >
>>> > one issue I'm having with "REPORTED" is that it shows up as "REPO" in the list
>>> > and can easily be confused with "REOP" for "REOPENED". Perhaps we need
>>> > something different for Reopened then.
>>>
>>> If we rename also that, we would have two bug names diverging from the other
>>> bug trackers, instead of just one. Moreover I find that there is no much to
>>> discuss on the appropriateness of REOPENED.
>>> I'd rather find an alternative for REPORTED, if this confusion is going to be
>>> an issue.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Luigi
>>
>>
>> OPENED ?
>
> Definitionally reported is definitely the right word to be using, but
> given that conflict/simiilarity between REPO/REOP I think opened is
> probably the best term we can get here.
> None of the synonyms for reported fit that's for sure.
>
>>
>> Valorie
>> --
>> http://about.me/valoriez
>>
>>
>
> Cheers,
> Ben
[Attachment #3 (text/html)]
I like OPENED as well. <br><br><br><br><br><br><br>-------- Original Message \
--------<br>On Sep 29, 2018, 6:17 PM, Ben Cooksley < bcooksley@kde.org> \
wrote:<blockquote class="protonmail_quote"><br><p dir="ltr">On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at \
9:44 AM Valorie Zimmerman<br> <<a \
href="mailto:valorie.zimmerman@gmail.com">valorie.zimmerman@gmail.com</a>> \
wrote:<br> ><br>
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 1:48 AM Luigi Toscano <<a \
href="mailto:luigi.toscano@tiscali.it">luigi.toscano@tiscali.it</a>> wrote:<br> \
>><br> >> Kai Uwe Broulik ha scritto:<br>
>> > Hi,<br>
>> ><br>
>> > > Here is my follow-up change recommendation based on feedback and \
research:<br> >> > ><br>
>> > > UNCONFIRMED -> REPORTED<br>
>> > > WONTFIX -> INTENTIONAL<br>
>> > > INVALID -> NOTABUG<br>
>> ><br>
>> > one issue I'm having with "REPORTED" is that it shows up as "REPO" in \
the list<br> >> > and can easily be confused with "REOP" for "REOPENED". \
Perhaps we need<br> >> > something different for Reopened then.<br>
>><br>
>> If we rename also that, we would have two bug names diverging from the \
other<br> >> bug trackers, instead of just one. Moreover I find that there is \
no much to<br> >> discuss on the appropriateness of REOPENED.<br>
>> I'd rather find an alternative for REPORTED, if this confusion is going to \
be<br> >> an issue.<br>
>><br>
>> --<br>
>> Luigi<br>
><br>
><br>
> OPENED ?</p>
<p dir="ltr">Definitionally reported is definitely the right word to be using, \
but<br> given that conflict/simiilarity between REPO/REOP I think opened is<br>
probably the best term we can get here.<br>
None of the synonyms for reported fit that's for sure.</p>
<p dir="ltr">><br>
> Valorie<br>
> --<br>
> <a href="http://about.me/valoriez">http://about.me/valoriez</a><br>
><br>
></p>
<p dir="ltr">Cheers,<br>
Ben<br>
</p>
</div>
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic