[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope-Coders] Collector Status Meanings

[Chris McDonough]

On Fri, 2004-07-30 at 14:44, Chris Withers wrote:
> > But needing to wade through a bunch of wontfixes that are just responses
> > to bad bugreporting
> 
> These should be rejected, not wontfix'ed. And most of the time they now 
> are. If I find any wontfix'es like this, I'd reject them, And given I 
> went through ALL the wontfix'es today, I don't think there are any like 
> this...

Ya, you're right about this, I agree.

But still I would just never think to go through the "wontfix" entries
on a bug day or any other time... I would think it would be a waste of
time because I think of wontfix as a terminal state never to be looked
at again except as a historical curiosity.  I think this may have to do
with your definition of "wontfix", which differs from mine:

  Wontfix

  This means that the bug or feature request the issue refers to has
  been accepted as valid but will not be dealt with for the
  forseeable future.

  Reasons for this may include:

  Bugs in deprecated components of Zope.

OK, I agree with that.

  Bugs that are believable but that cannot be reproduced either by
  the submitter or the wontfix'er.

I would mark this "rejected" or "pending rejection".  I'm not sure what
"believable" means here; it's a little too fuzzy.

  Bugs where there is no solution but a common workaround which means
  the bug should never be excercised. 

OK, agreed.

  Features that don't have a champion and so are unlikely to be 
  implemented.

I would call this "deferred".

  Changes that don't fix a bug or add a new feature, and don't have a
  champion, or haven't see activity in a long time.

I would also call this "deferred".

> > The difference is that some pending items haven't even been looked at in
> > earnest.  I usually put things in deferred only after I've spent a
> > half-hour or hour or so trying to fix the thing and I've realized that
> > it might take, say, a week to actually fix it.  OTOH, if I spent two
> > minutes trying to fix something and fail but I still have no idea how
> > long it would actually take to fix, I leave it in pending state.
> 
> Okay, but other people don't do this, or see the difference.
> For me, it's easy enough to page through http://collector.zope.org/Zope
> and see the pending entries and see which ones of those have followups 
> and which ones don't...

Really?  There's like more than 200 of them, right?  That could take a
while.. although granted you get to know them after a while. ;-)

> > I'm not sure I care enough to further argue, but I'll note that you're
> > suggesting that we change the meaning of deferred to something other
> > than long-term-pending and communicating this decision to all longtime
> > collector participants is gonna be hard and the result will probably be
> > confusing.
> 
> Well, at least there's a wiki page describing what the states mean now. 
> I was contemplating linking that from the followup form just below/above 
> the radio buttons for slecting the type of followup. Should I?

I think that would be a good idea, my disagreements notwithstanding. 
Thanks for doing this, BTW.

> FWIW: had it been trivial to add a new state, I would have done, it 
> wasn't so I didn't :-S

Would you be willing add a "pending rejection" state, Ken?  Or if you
tell me how to do it, I could do it.

If Ken added a pending rejection state, would it be reasonable to use
that instead of deferred to mean "pending rejection"?

- C