Santiago Vila writes: > > As I see it, the `Status' of a bug-report (I suggest at least: clear, > > reported, identified, known-workaround, known-fix, fixed) is an issue > > that is othogonal to the `Severity' (as used for now: wishlist, > > normal, important, grave, critical) - eg. the fact that a bug was > > fixed (eg. by a NMR) does not mean it is not important any more. > > Hi. I *fully* agree with this.
Great ;) > I have not read your proposal in detail, but I think that a simple > three state "closed | fixed but not closed | open" would be enough for > now. [I feel my reply to this is of general interest - I forward to the list] Well, my additional states are mostly aimed at providing users (and other developpers) documentation about bugs they may suffer from. I think we should encourage users to report bugs when the hit one, and it is IMHO an important issue to let them new quickly about related reports, without forcing them to get through all the thread when not needed. -- Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Stop making M$-Bill richer & richer, isp-email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | support Debian GNU/Linux: debian-email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | more powerful, more stable ! http://www.mygale.org/~ydirson/ | Check <http://www.debian.org/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
