Subject: Re: PRs should first have submitted status rather than open
To: Matthias Buelow <email@example.com>
From: Petri Koistinen <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 05/24/2001 11:06:20
On Wed, 23 May 2001, Matthias Buelow wrote:
> Manuel Bouyer writes:
> >So maybe we should separate 'open' in 2 fields: open with default responsible,
> >and open but with responsible changed.
> no, no, no, please leave it as it is or it'll get totally confusing...
No, I am not trying to make GNATS more confusing that it already is. I
would like a see system just like now, but there should be one more status
before open. It would be called as submitted, because there are so many
"open" PRs that haven't been touched at all. This would also help
developers on placing their powers on one place at time. Statistics would
also given better idea how bug solving is progressing.
What do you think about this GNATS bug database summary:
(Automatically generated on 24 May 2001 06:46:48 GMT)
Amount of closed PRs is OK, there is nothing wrong. But compare open PRs
with other states. There is 283 PRs in analyzed, feedback and suspended
state. There is total of 2200 bugs which are not closed, and amount of
these open PRs is 87,1% and this is too high. Analyzed is 6,1%, feedback
5,3% and suspended 1,5%. Dividing current open status to "submitted" and
"open" states would change this is inbalance.
I think change would be easy to implement. All new PRs would have status
called "submitted" first and when work to solve PR realy starts this
status should be changed to open. I don't see why current open PRs
couldn't stay as open. Ofcource there will be old send-pr(1) programs
which will send PRs in open state first for a long time, but I don't see
this as risk either.
Is there any real good reason why this kind of system couldn't survive?
I think this improvement would only result in better customer