295935 - INVALID resolution is not descriptive of its actual function. NOTABUG as used on numerous other Bugzilla installs would be a better resolution, with something additional for INVALID's other uses.

Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX

(bugzilla.mozilla.org :: General, defect)

Description

[Tristor]

I got into a conversation with justdave and some others in #bmo earlier today
about using NOTABUG instead of INVALID, after poking around the Ubuntu bug
tracker.  To sum up the issue, the 'official' purpose/description of INVALID as
cited on the "A Bug's Life Cycle" page is "INVALID: The problem described is not
a bug."  While learning how to properly triage, I have recieved some mixed
signals from other QA personnel, and I believe that their is definite ambiguity
about some things.  The issue that is presented is that INVALID is designed for
the purpose of resolving bug reports that are not bugs (in other words what the
reporter is speaking of is intentional by design), but it is also used for
resolving bugs that are 'gibberish' or something that is not Mozilla related,
and needs to be taken up with another organization, as well as other uses.  As a
followup to this bug, I will file an RFE, and make it depend on this, that will
add a new resolution called NOTMOZ to fix the issues that will come about from
making a change, were this bug fixed.  Basically, INVALID is considerd 'harsh'
by some when resolving, and it isn't descriptive of what it actually means. 
NOTABUG is more descriptive, and isn't ambiguous at all, which would lead to
better understanding between QA personnel, bug reporters, and commentors.  I
personally think that a change in the how the resolution is presented would
increase efficiency, and leave less doubt about what to resolve something as (at
least for someone such as myself that is mildly new to triaging) and would give
the reporters less of a 'reason' to argue with QA personnel about the resolution.

I CCed Asa on this, since Dave had mentioned that he would probably be involved
in any decision regarding this.  Hope I filed in the right component.

Comment 1

[Tristor]

Sander brought it to my attention that this sorta/kinda a dupe of bug 108514,
which hasn't seen action since 2002.  I don't think this should be duped to it
though, since I am addressing the problem from the angle that INVALID isn't the
proper name for the resolution at all, but perhaps some insight can be gained
from the comments on that bug.  He also mentioned bug 119305 as possibly having
some relation, which it appears to have, somewhat.  Sander made some valid
points in IRC about this.  To be perfectly honest, I agree with him to a certain
extent.  This isn't really uber-high on the totem-pole (which is why I made it
trivial severity), but I think that less confusing resolutions would improve
relations between triagers, developers, commentors, and reporters, and that in
turn would make everybody's job a bit easier.  I'm not quite sure where to go
with this, since I have had it now explained to me that INVALID is /meant/ to be
a catch-all, although I still think that is an absolute kludge (but that is my
obsessiveness about semantics kicking in).  Considering the status of the two
bugs that were filed way back when, and are still NEW, I am thinking perhaps the
best course of action would be for me to close the two bugs I just recently
filed, since I don't see anything happening here.  

I still find my point about there needing to be a change to be valid, but I am
not entirely sure that the advantages to be gained are solid enough to merit the
work on the developers part to change it, especially now that I know that all
the resolutions are hardcoded.

Comment 2

[Dave Miller [:justdave]]

Just so it's clear, there's no *technical* reason we can't do this, because
Bugzilla makes it easy to change these now.  However, there could be procedural
reasons, etc, and it's up to the QA people to decide if they want this or not.

Comment 3

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

Would the increase in understandability be worth the jarring effect on existing users? If we are going to rename resolutions, we should make all changes at once.

Gerv

Comment 4

[David Lawrence [:dkl]]

Is this something that people still want? Who are the stakeholders who would need to sign off on this change?

Personally I am for keeping the resolutions as slim as possible and INVALID covers many different closure scenarios. And doesn't seem that harsh to me.
In that case WORKSFORME could be deemed harsh as well.

Dave

Comment 5

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

dkl: at some point, we will have a public process to debate changes to the bmo workflow. I started one, but it was decided that the reach wasn't broad enough, then shaver became unwell. So it's on hold at the moment. So all bugs about changing statuses and resolutions should be considered on hold also.

Gerv