Talk bug-tracking system: Statuses

Okay, help me brainstorm on the statuses. My starter list is below. I'm not going to explain them. If you don't understand, that's a problem we should fix.

Submitted
Under consideration
Delayed for larger change
Not a bug per se
Needs more information
Fixed; Needs testing
Fixed

Comments?

Not a bug per se

For example? I'm not sure what would fall into this category.

Assuming it would be a misplaced feature request.

Verified (or Confirmed)

Or, if you're picky:

Verified by User(s)
Verified by Staff
Verified by Tim

Wontfix

Dupe

I wouldn't really get what 'verified' meant in this context ...

There will be things that, while bugs, you feel cannot ever be fixed. That needs to be noted too. How about:

Denied
Abandoned (no, I don't really like that either)
When h*** freezes over (maybe not?)

And maybe there should be a status for yes, it's a bug, but no we're not going to do anything about it for an undefined period, but it's still a bug:

Postponed
Deferred

On that "delayed for larger change", any chance it can be linked to what that "larger change" is?

Okay, I want to avoid "Not a bug" because it will be felt as such a put down. There a lot of things that are on the line between bug and not bug. Is the fact that the plus-button take you to a search a bug? Mmmmmmm..no. Will people say it is? Yes.

Maybe we could have:

Not a bug
Feature or change request

But that gets us into people using this to submit ideas. I don't want that, frankly. I don't want people to be bothering me that I haven't responded to their idea. I can't always do that. Sometimes the only response I could give would be "Meh. I dunno." If that's all I can do, I'd rather wait for other users to speak to it, and maybe give me something to say.

More to add:

Wontfix
Cannot replicate
Duplicate

Right. I want to avoid "verified." Does it mean the bug has been confirmed. The fix? Etc.

Ultimately, what I'm trying to figure out is what terms and concepts from the "world" of bug tracking belong here, and what don't.

LibraryThing: Breaking new ground every, again :)

"Can't replicate" is good.

> 2

It could be a misplaced feature request. Or it could be something that a user perceives as "wrong" but really is part of how LT was intended to work. Or it could be a misinterpretation on the user's part.

Other things?

Or just a giant steaming piece of nonsense.

*imagines icon for giant steaming piece of nonsense* ;-)

>12 timspalding:

You're right. That one should definitely get its own status. ^_^

> 3

That was my first thought, but that would be "not a bug".
The words "per se" suggest that there is something more to it, something that is buggy.

To clarify

Verified as it someone else has confirmed that the bug is actually a bug and something is amiss.

>16 theapparatus:

Right. But can you express that in a way that stands up without explanation?

Verified as a bug?

"Duplicated" maybe?

What if only I can change status? I'm trying to think of some difference between things like:

Confirmed as bug
Confirmed as fixed

which you guys can enter, and things like "Not a bug, go away" that only I can.

Sounds wise. Well, maybe staff only - you might not actually want to do them all yourself.

I think this would only work effectively if there were certain statuses that only LT staff could alter. Otherwise we wouldn't really know if you'd seen it or if someone had only thought you'd seen it.

"Confirmed as..." would be fine.

On most tracking systems, Verified is understood as following a bug report. Most times with a known and/or trusted user verifing the bug as being legit and filling in any needed data on the original bug report. (ie How to produce the error, url(s), etc.)

I like the idea that only staff can mark certain statuses, such as Under consideration, Delayed for larger change, Confirmed as bug, Won't fix (I don't like that wording but I do think we need something of that nature).

Let users do the other ones - I think you have a good starting list and I like the addition of 'Confirmed as fixed' for when it is done done. I also like 'Duplicate report' or something, perhaps even with a field to link to the original thread. While I don't want to discourage duplicates or discussion, I'd think it'd be most helpful to have things all in one place?

Might you need a 'Bug reopened' or something for if a confirmed as fixed problem rears its head again?

23>

Won't fix (I don't like that wording but I do think we need something of that nature).


Alternative? "WONTFIX" is a standard Bugzilla reason to close a bug, so I think that's why so many of us have been gravitating to that particular usage.

25> As mentioned above - reported, yes, but then confirmed reported (someone else saw the same thing) and confirmed fixed (Tim et al says they fixed it, users see it working - there have been times when the developers fixed something else entirely, or fixed something that promptly broke again, or...). But yeah, most of the statuses should be from the developers' side.

How about a "Need more detail" status for developers to set?

Since the statuses are attached to a discussion thread, I don't think there's any need to add a field for linking to a duplicate bug report. Just put the link as a post in the thread.

Late to the discussion, apologies if I'm re-stating the obvious.

I'm missing statuses like "fix planned", "fix scheduled" and "under work"?

Intended behaviour

That's better than "Not a bug."

WONTFIX is a default status out of Trac. That's probably why it's seen a lot of places.

I like "Tim says so"

I propose a very Tim-ish status for WONTFIX: "No."

I still say it wasn't a review, but it works fine for me as a bug status. Perhaps with a raspberry/Bronx cheer on the end?

>33 brightcopy:

There's always "blow me."

Sometimes something that seems to be fixed is not. I think you need a 'replay' status for when that happens - just so there isn't a lot of time spent trying to explain that this is round 2 and the fix didn't stick, or it caused another issue related to the bug.

35> No, silly, that's not a status, it's a resolution.

37>

Please tell me the resolution will not be televised.

38> LOL!

Reasons why I love LT...

>There's always "blow me."

Already taken. That's Bruegger's response to complaints.

See http://www.librarything.com/topic/99383