Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 166174
RFE: Better name for "MODIFIED" status
Last modified: 2013-06-23 22:56:46 EDT
From Bugzilla Helper: User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.11) Gecko/20050730 Epiphany/1.7.4 Description of problem: The name of the "MODIFIED" status is very unclear; it doesn't give a great deal of information on what the status actually means - you have to look it up to know. Since the state means: "an engineer has a proposed fix for this, which hasn't yet gone through QA", a suggestion for a better name might be: "GOT_PROPOSED_FIX" (naturally, this would totally break everyone's canned queries...) Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Be a first-time user of Bugzilla 2. See an attribute of a bug change in some way 3. Wonder if it should now be in the MODIFIED state Additional info:
Bringing Jeff Needle into the discussion since this probably has alot to do with alot of the new process effort going on now.
Yeah, David beat me up in our training session. While I agree that this could be worded better, it wasn't something that felt worth changing during our initial process flow because so many people depend on it. However, I don't care one way or the other, all I have to change is slides, not behavior :-).
What would be a better choice? CHECKEDIN, FIXEDINCVS? Maybe bypass MODIFIED and go straight to ON_QA?
To clarify for Dave Malcolm: MODIFIED state means the sources in CVS have been modified to include the bug fix. I agree that MODIFIED is not a great name, but since thousands of people know what it means, and since its meaning has been consistent for several years, I'm against changing its name or the time of the ASSIGNED->MODIFIED transition. With the new scheme being rolled out this week, we'll now have MODIFIED->ON_QA transitions at the time of filing advisory Q/A requests, which is a good move. So, my feeling is that this RFE bug should be changed to "better documentation" (as opposed to "better name") for MODIFIED status if in fact existing info doesn't already make this clear. (If existing documentation already makes this clear, then I think this RFE should be rejected.)
Red Hat Bugzilla is now using version 3.2 of the Bugzilla codebase and therefore this bug will need to be re-verified against the new release. With the updated code this bug may no longer be relevant or may have been fixed in the new code. Updating bug version to 3.2.
old as the hills. closing