Re: RFC: A little 'howto' about bug system status's.

On Mon, 2 Oct 2000, Zak Greant wrote: >At 11:26 PM 10/2/00 +0300, Jani Taskinen wrote: > >>Okay, I asked this a while ago so I should propably go on >>writing it also. >> >>'Duplicate' >>The report is either bogus (e.g. empty) or send accidently twice or more. >>!!! Reports marked as duplicates are deleted from database from time to >>time. !!! > >Ah... I have always assumed that this meant the bug was a post about a bug >that has already been reported. Maybe it really should be renamed to 'Invalid' or 'Bogus' or 'To be killed' ?-) >If this is the common usage (which it may be by now, due to the sheer >number of bug reports that you handle :) then perhaps it should be renamed >to "Invalid"... This is how Rasmus explained it a while ago. (And since when something I have done has become common practise? ;-o ) >If a bug is bogus or a duplicate, then I would close it with a note stating >that it was bogus. I think better thing (to keep the database clean) is to mark them to be deleted..being the status 'Duplicate' or 'To be terminated' or something like that. And periodically (like when the count gets to 100) those are deleted (manually) from the database. >>And the one status that is missing IMO: >> >>'Similar to' Or 'Same as' or 'Related to' ? >>The report describes the same assumed bug. > >That makes sense - anyone have any issues about me adding this (along with >the content of this this message after everyone has had a kick at it :) to >the bugs page? Could you also add links to those bug reports mentioned in that similar field..? And the bugs mentioned in the 'similar' field should be automaticly set to the 'similar' status and have the 'parent' mentioned in the 'similar' field..? Got it? =) And you might also add 4.0.3RC2 to the version list the same time? Another thing would be nice also: Listing bugs by submitter.. --Jani