> I think the more synthetic 'unconfirmed' or 'unverified' would be easier to
> understand than 'not yet verified' for us Portuguese speakers. OTOH,'not yet'
> helps delivering a 'just waiting for your help' message.

I thought of "unconfirmed" as well, but that could be misinterpreted as
"someone tried confirming it, and it wasn't reproducible".

I think the more synthetic 'unconfirmed' or 'unverified' would be easier to
understand than 'not yet verified' for us Portuguese speakers. OTOH,'not yet'
helps delivering a 'just waiting for your help' message.

So, in short, I'm not even sure why I posted this :D

On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 11:48, Martin v. Löwis <
metatracker@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> wrote:

>
> Martin v. Löwis <martin@v.loewis.de> added the comment:
>
> > Question is what to name it. Should it be "confirmation needed",
> "confirm",
> > "verify"? I would like a non-native English speaker to make the final
> call to
> > make sure it makes sense.
>
> How about "not yet verified"?

Works for me!

> Question is what to name it. Should it be "confirmation needed", "confirm",
> "verify"? I would like a non-native English speaker to make the final call to
> make sure it makes sense.

How about "not yet verified"?

A stage before *test needed* makes sense. That way an unset Stage means that a
triage is needed and we now have a way for people to say "this is triaged in
terms of being categorized and such, but I don't know if the bug is valid".

Question is what to name it. Should it be "confirmation needed", "confirm",
"verify"? I would like a non-native English speaker to make the final call to
make sure it makes sense.

Brett, any opinion?

Now we have Stages, "confirmation needed" might be an easier way to flag any
unconfirmed bugs (and suggest people try reproducing the issue).

That would allow two paths to 'test needed':
good bug report -> 'test needed'
poor bug report -> 'confirmation needed' -> 'test needed'

That would avoid the (immediate) need to change the default view.

Oh ... good point :)

Yeah, it makes more sense to add it to "status" than to resolution. On the other
hand it makes it harder to search for open and confirmed bugs. If you are going
to add confirmed to status then the default view should be changed from open to
not closed, too.

(rationale: a bug can't be "closed - confirmed").

The question is if this isn't a status instead of a resolution...

Please add a new keyword "confirmed" to the list of resolutions. Guido just
explained to me that "accepted" means that the patch is accepted. I like to have
a flag to show other developers that somebody has verified the existence of a bug.