Refine and Document the Issue Tracking Process
Based on the experiences with some issues, especially #4893, I would like to suggest the following:
- The issue-tracking process should be refined and documented. The goal is to avoid misunderstandings and to make involved parties (developers, contributors, users, ...) feel better during interaction.
A few thoughts to consider (can be used as a foundation for a document draft):
- An issue remains "Open", until it is resolved.
- Rejecting an issue means "closing" it.
- An issue of type "bug" cannot be closed, until the bug is fixed.
- The status "Rejected" for a bug report means essentially "the bug does not exist" (= workforme)
- If an issue contains [PATCH] in the title, and the patch cannot be applied, then ask the author first for a revision, prior to "rejecting".
- Prefer to place feature requests on future releases, instead of rejecting them.
An issue (even a defect/bug) can be postponed (e.g. to version 1.9.x or 2.0)
Some issues need several steps until they are solved in production quality and the author may use the issue-tracker to collect feedback and test results. A patch should not be "rejected" with the status, as this would close the issue.
Some issues about the Issue-Tracker:
- Introduce Tracker "Limitation", thus issues which are not exactly bugs but limitations (e.g. #4893, known limitation of current implementation) can be tracked.
- Introduce Status "Retracted", thus the issue author/reporter can say "I retract the issue", e.g. after understanding that he made a mistake. This would be much friendlier against the author/reporter.
- Find a replacement for the term "Rejected" (it just sounds a little bit "harsh").
- Possibly rename "bug" to "defect".