From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Martin J. Bligh" Subject: Re: networking bugs and bugme.osdl.org Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 17:44:48 -0700 Sender: linux-net-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <1340000.1056847487@[10.10.2.4]> References: <3EFCC1EB.2070904@candelatech.com> <20030627.151906.102571486.davem@redhat.com> <3EFCC6EE.3020106@candelatech.com> <20030627.170022.74744550.davem@redhat.com> <20030628001954.GD18676@work.bitmover.com> <34700000.1056760028@[10.10.2.4]> <1056828052.6295.31.camel@dhcp22.swansea.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Larry McVoy , "David S. Miller" , greearb@candelatech.com, davidel@xmailserver.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-net@vger.kernel.org, netdev@oss.sgi.com Return-path: To: Alan Cox In-Reply-To: <1056828052.6295.31.camel@dhcp22.swansea.linux.org.uk> Content-Disposition: inline List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org --Alan Cox wrote (on Saturday, June 28, 2003 20:20:53 +0100): > On Sad, 2003-06-28 at 01:27, Martin J. Bligh wrote: >> That's a trivial change to make if you want it. we just add a "reviewed" >> / "certified" state between "new" and "assigned". Yes, might be a good >> idea. I'm not actually that convinced that "assigned" is overly useful >> in the context of open-source, but that's a separate discussion. > > Most bugzilla's seem to use VERIFIED for this, and it means people who > have better things to do can just pull bugs that are verified and/or > tagged with "patch" in the attachments Hmmm. we have VERIFIED set up to mean that the proposed fix has been verified to work. Could reshuffle it, or we could find a different word I guess - reusing the same one might cause confusion (on the other hand ...using the same word for different things in different bugzillas is confusing too ...) M.