launchpad-dev team mailing list archive

[Deryck Hodge <deryck.hodge@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi, all.

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Martin Pool <mbp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 30 March 2010 20:49, Jonathan Lange <jml@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> The LEP did say this in its way, but I've updated it to be extra explicit.
>
> Thanks, it looks very clear now.
>
>>>  istm you would like it to normally appear in user-oriented
>>> searches (filebug dupes) but not in developer-oriented lists.
>>>
>>
>> I think this is a helpful distinction. I wonder if we even have a
>> structure for this in the tracker.
>
> I'm not sure this needs to block implementation but it probably does
> need to be thought about.  If the bug is totally hidden then people
> may keep filing new dupes.  I don't know what fraction of the
> developer pain typically comes from dupes vs ongoing discussion.
>
> otoh the +filebug dupefinder seems to be pretty much mandatory these
> days and it does match closed bugs, so perhaps nothing more is needed.
>

There is no particular distinction in the bugs app between user facing
lists and developer lists.  As you note here, the +filebug dupe finder
does include all bugs, including closed status bugs, so bugs with this
new status would be included there.  I do like the distinction of user
lists versus developer lists and it's interesting to think about this
more in the app.

As for the suggestions everyone provided here, thanks!

Jonathan has noted them in the LEP and we'll continue discussing with
stakeholders and the bugs team as we move forward.  Like others here I
liked DISCUSSION or INDISCUSSION best of all the new suggestions.  I
think this would prevent status toggling best of any option, but the
name implies the developers haven't made a decision, which would not
be true.  But maybe this is not a problem when coupled with the fact
that the status is a closed status?

Cheers,
deryck


-- 
Deryck Hodge
https://launchpad.net/~deryck
http://www.devurandom.org/