Re: fuzz failures not generating bugs

[Jeff Morriss <jeff.morriss.ws () gmail com>]

Gerald Combs wrote:
> On 11/30/12 1:56 PM, Evan Huus wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Guy Harris <guy () alum mit edu
> > <mailto:guy () alum mit edu>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >     On Nov 30, 2012, at 1:08 PM, Evan Huus <eapache () gmail com
> >     <mailto:eapache () gmail com>> wrote:
> >
> >     > I would think so. It's bothered me for a while that we didn't have
> >     a way to distinguish between "brand new, nobody has looked at it
> >     yet" bugs and "solution identified, but nobody wants to work on it"
> >     bugs.
> >
> >     CONFIRMED is "somebody's looked at it and determined that it's
> >     really a bug (as opposed to, for example, that's what it's supposed
> >     to do)"; IN_PROGRESS is "solution identified and somebody's working
> >     on it".  There's no separate "solution identified, but nobody wants
> >     to work on it", or even "yes, it's a bug, but we haven't figured out
> >     the cause yet" state; CONFIRMED covers those two.
> >
> >
> > Yes, this is more precise than my definition. Launchpad provides TRIAGED
> > which is "confirmed with enough information to fix, but nobody is
> > working on it yet", but I haven't found it all that useful a state.
> >  
> >
> >     > Separating our current NEW bugs into either UNCONFIRMED or
> >     CONFIRMED states seems like the right way to do that.
> >     >
> >     > While on the topic, I'd also love an "INCOMPLETE" state like
> >     Launchpad (for bugs that are waiting on the submitter for more
> >     information -- we seem to have a fair number of those), but I
> >     suppose one thing at a time :)
> >
> >     Yes - a bug database I've worked with a state like that.
> >
> >     It also had resolutions along the lines of
> >
> >             NOTABUG - "that's what the software's supposed to do";
> >
> >             NOTOURBUG - "it's a bug in some other software that we use
> >     (and that we can't or shouldn't work around)"
> >
> >
> > These would be nice.
>
> I updated Bugzilla's workflow earlier today. I added and INCOMPLETE
> state and enabled UNCONFIRMED so we now have the following states:
>
> UNCONFIRMED

New bugs are showing up in the CONFIRMED state.  Shouldn't they be 
UNCONFIRMED?
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org>
Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
            mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe