Ticket resolved status

[Caspar Florian Ebeling]

On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 11:46 PM, Ryan Schmidt <ryandesign at macports.org> wrote:
> When closing a ticket in Trac, I can select from the following
> resolutions:
>
> fixed
> invalid
> wontfix
> duplicate
> worksforme
>
> More often than I would like, I find myself unsure which to select.
>
> The Guide does not give any guidance on these ticket resolution values.
>
> If I had to define these I guess I would say:
>
> fixed - there was a problem in MacPorts and it was fixed in MacPorts
> invalid - not a MacPorts issue?
> wontfix - there is a problem in MacPorts and it will not be fixed in
> MacPorts
> duplicate - another ticket describes this problem
> worksforme - unable to reproduce the issue, user did not provide
> sufficient information
>
> Is it possible to change these values in Trac? Add new resolutions?
> Remove ones we don't like? The TracTickets wiki page also lists these
> values, so I wonder if it's hard-coded?
>
> I find myself wanting a resolution like "no change required". Or is
> that what "invalid" is for?

These are largely inherited from things like bugzilla, and I would
hesitate to change them, because their are also somewhat conventions,
weird as their sound.

"No change required" is implicit in wontfix, invalid and worksforme.
Wontfix means, something like "It's not a bug it'a a feature", or
"it's not worth the trouble in this version"; invalid
is "I can see what the user did wrong and it was not our software",
so the assertion that there is a problem with software is invalid.
And worksforme is a somewhat weaker form of invalid, a second class
invalid. You cannot rule out that there might be a problem on
some esoteric platform, but a reasonable check did not show
any problem in a situation as the user describes it.

There might be better, and more authoritive descriptions in the bugzilla
documentation. These are my rule-of-thumb heuristics. The tags
are not entirely unambiguous, but that only reflects the character
of many bugs in that respect, doesn't it ;)

>
> Take this ticket:
>
> http://trac.macports.org/ticket/15914
>
> It was a user error caused by a mis-configured macports.conf.
>
> Maybe "user error" is the resolution I want?
>
> How would you resolve this ticket? "fixed" because the user fixed the
> problem? "invalid" because it's not a MacPorts problem? "wontfix"
> because we won't change anything in MacPorts to fix it? "worksforme"
> because it works for me (when I don't mis-configure my
> macports.conf)? Do you see my problem? :-)

It's clearly invalid, in my view. Would be worksforme if you didn't
know the cause, but you yourself were able to install as suggested,
and wontfix if it was a problem only under Mac OS X Cheetah/Puma.

Florian




-- 
Florian Ebeling
florian.ebeling at gmail.com