Re: fuzz failures not generating bugs

[Bill Meier <wmeier () newsguy com>]

On 11/30/2012 4:08 PM, Evan Huus wrote:
>     Would UNCONFIRMED be less confusing than CONFIRMED?
>
>
> 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. Separating
> our current NEW bugs into either UNCONFIRMED or CONFIRMED states seems
> like the right way to do that.

+1

I would also note that presumably the status can just go from 
UNCONFIRMED to RESOLVED if a bug is just immediately fixed upon reviewing.

> 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 :)

+1, I think.

How does the incomplete status get updated when the additional 
information is provided ? manually ?

If manually, is this OK in practice or do peole forget to update the 
status ?

Bill



___________________________________________________________________________
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