SUMMARY bugs.kde.org allows a given report to simultaneously have both its Status field set to RESOLVED and its Resolution field set to "INTENTIONAL": >INTENTIONAL > The problem described is a bug which will never be fixed. This actually occurs in practice, as can be seen in ticket #411285. STEPS TO REPRODUCE 1. Access a RESOLVED report such as #302642 2. Select the INTENTIONAL option in the second field in the Status line. 3. Activate the Save Changes button to the right. OBSERVED RESULT I did not verify that, but presumably, the above will suffice to get a "RESOLVED INTENTIONAL" ticket. EXPECTED RESULT Either the operation should be rejected, or - ideally - only compatible options should be shown.
RESOLVED INTENTIONAL means "This is behaving exactly like we expect or have designed it to behave, so there is nothing actionable to do in this Bugzilla ticket. You don't need to be so pedantic regarding the resolution statuses. They're just rough groupings, not ironclad contracts sealed in blood. :)
Hi Nate, (In reply to Nate Graham from comment #1) > RESOLVED INTENTIONAL means "This is behaving exactly like we expect or have > designed it to behave, so there is nothing actionable to do in this Bugzilla > ticket. Heh, it's no wonder why you're misusing these if you think so. In reality, neither RESOLVED nor INTENTIONAL imply what you claim they mean, and they imply more: A. RESOLVED means - surprisingly - that the issue was resolved. B. INTENTIONAL implies these additional pieces of information: 1. That the issue is a bug. 2. That the issue will never be resolved. Obviously, A. and B.2. conflict (except - technically - if INTENTIONAL is applied to already fixed bugs, but INTENTIONAL was obviously not designed to be applied to resolved issues). > You don't need to be so pedantic regarding the resolution statuses. What are you trying to imply here?
(In reply to Filipus Klutiero from comment #0) > SUMMARY > bugs.kde.org allows a given report to simultaneously have both its Status > field set to RESOLVED and its Resolution field set to "INTENTIONAL": > >INTENTIONAL > > The problem described is a bug which will never be fixed. > > This actually occurs in practice, as can be seen in ticket #411285. ... as well as #412321 (reported by yours truly)
(In reply to Filipus Klutiero from comment #2) > Obviously, A. and B.2. conflict (except - technically - if INTENTIONAL is > applied to already fixed bugs, but INTENTIONAL was obviously not designed to > be applied to resolved issues). I see the problem. You are reading these words and ascribing to them a conventional, conversational meaning that makes sense to you rather than learning their specific technical meaning in the context of a bug tracker. I will once again point you to https://community.kde.org/Get_Involved/Bug_Reporting#Understand_what_the_resolution_statuses_mean Allow me to quote two passages: > RESOLVED does not necessarily mean that the issue has been fixed for you, > just that the Bugzilla ticket itself is no longer actionable by the developers. > For example, a Bugzilla ticket may be marked as RESOLVED UPSTREAM if it's > traced to a Qt issue, even if the Qt issue has not yet been fixed, or the > version of Qt that fixes the bug is not yet released or available in your > distro. > RESOLVED INTENTIONAL does not mean "shut up and go away, we don't care!" What > is much more likely is that the issue is not actually considered a real issue, > or cannot be fixed without a reasonable amount of engineering effort. I hope that helps you understand the technical meanings of these words in this context. > > You don't need to be so pedantic regarding the resolution statuses. > > What are you trying to imply here? I'm not implying anything. :) I'm outright stating that you are being pedantic regarding the resolution statuses. :)
(In reply to Nate Graham from comment #4) > (In reply to Filipus Klutiero from comment #2) > > Obviously, A. and B.2. conflict (except - technically - if INTENTIONAL is > > applied to already fixed bugs, but INTENTIONAL was obviously not designed to > > be applied to resolved issues). > I see the problem. You are reading these words and ascribing to them a > conventional, conversational meaning that makes sense to you rather than > learning their specific technical meaning in the context of a bug tracker. I > will once again point you to > https://community.kde.org/Get_Involved/ > Bug_Reporting#Understand_what_the_resolution_statuses_mean > > Allow me to quote two passages: > > > RESOLVED does not necessarily mean that the issue has been fixed for you, > > just that the Bugzilla ticket itself is no longer actionable by the developers. > > For example, a Bugzilla ticket may be marked as RESOLVED UPSTREAM if it's > > traced to a Qt issue, even if the Qt issue has not yet been fixed, or the > > version of Qt that fixes the bug is not yet released or available in your > > distro. > > > RESOLVED INTENTIONAL does not mean "shut up and go away, we don't care!" What > > is much more likely is that the issue is not actually considered a real issue, > > or cannot be fixed without a reasonable amount of engineering effort. > > I hope that helps you understand the technical meanings of these words in > this context. Thanks for specifying the words you are referring to and the "technical meaning" you believe they have in the context of a bug tracker. > > > You don't need to be so pedantic regarding the resolution statuses. > > > > What are you trying to imply here? > I'm not implying anything. :) I'm outright stating that you are being > pedantic regarding the resolution statuses. :) Where do you think I am being pedantic regarding the resolution statuses? And why did you set - once again - this ticket's Resolution to INTENTIONAL?
(In reply to Filipus Klutiero from comment #5) > Where do you think I am being pedantic regarding the resolution statuses? In this bug report. > And why did you set - once again - this ticket's Resolution to INTENTIONAL? Because it's intentional that a ticket can have both resolution INTENTIONAL and status RESOLVED.
(In reply to Nate Graham from comment #6) > (In reply to Filipus Klutiero from comment #5) > > Where do you think I am being pedantic regarding the resolution statuses? > In this bug report. Ehm, and where in this report do you think I am being pedantic regarding the resolution statuses? > > And why did you set - once again - this ticket's Resolution to INTENTIONAL? > Because it's intentional that a ticket can have both resolution INTENTIONAL > and status RESOLVED. Nate, considering that you demonstrated your misunderstanding of statuses in https://community.kde.org/index.php?title=Get_Involved/Bug_Reporting&diff=79358&oldid=79286 and even more recently on this very site, I have to ask: do you have understand that RESOLVED and INTENTIONAL were not designed to be used together (or - to put it simply - that they are incompatible)?
(In reply to Filipus Klutiero from comment #7) > Ehm, and where in this report do you think I am being pedantic regarding the > resolution statuses? In everything you've written in this and several other bug reports. :) (In reply to Filipus Klutiero from comment #7) > Nate, considering that you demonstrated your misunderstanding of statuses in > https://community.kde.org/index.php?title=Get_Involved/ > Bug_Reporting&diff=79358&oldid=79286 and even more recently on this very > site, I have to ask: do you have understand that RESOLVED and INTENTIONAL > were not designed to be used together (or - to put it simply - that they are > incompatible)? You can keep claiming this, but I'm afraid it won't change anything. Your understanding is not accurate. We can and do use the RESOLVED and INTENTIONAL statuses together to mean "this bug report is closed because the software that you believe is behaving incorrectly is in fact behaving exactly the way we intend it to behave". Thousands of bugs have been closed with RESOLVED INTENTIONAL and that meaning. That's just what it means, sorry. If you don't like that, you'll have to get used to it, or start a discussion in the kde-devel mailing list proposing that we change it.
(In reply to Nate Graham from comment #8) > (In reply to Filipus Klutiero from comment #7) > > Ehm, and where in this report do you think I am being pedantic regarding the > > resolution statuses? > In everything you've written in this and several other bug reports. :) This ticket's summary/topic is certainly not pedantic. In fact, I just found that more than 500 tickets are *currently* set to RESOLVED INTENTIONAL: https://bugs.kde.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=RESOLVED&list_id=1670435&query_format=advanced&resolution=WONTFIX If that's what you mean by "pedantic", you don't need to give such unreliable advice. In fact, as far as this ticket is concerned, you didn't need to reply at all. > (In reply to Filipus Klutiero from comment #7) > > Nate, considering that you demonstrated your misunderstanding of statuses in > > https://community.kde.org/index.php?title=Get_Involved/ > > Bug_Reporting&diff=79358&oldid=79286 and even more recently on this very > > site, I have to ask: do you have understand that RESOLVED and INTENTIONAL > > were not designed to be used together (or - to put it simply - that they are > > incompatible)? > You can keep claiming this, but I'm afraid it won't change anything. Your > understanding is not accurate. We can and do use the RESOLVED and > INTENTIONAL statuses together to mean "this bug report is closed because the > software that you believe is behaving incorrectly is in fact behaving > exactly the way we intend it to behave". Thousands of bugs have been closed > with RESOLVED INTENTIONAL and that meaning. That's just what it means, > sorry. If you don't like that, you'll have to get used to it, or start a > discussion in the kde-devel mailing list proposing that we change it. Eh, that was not a claim. That was a question. But your reply makes the answer clear - you still completely misunderstand the meaning of these statuses, and therefore you are not in a position to understand this bug currently. Thanks for: 1. Answering questions rather than trying to change the topic. 2. Taking the measures necessary so that this ticket's resolution is restored. 3. *Filing* tickets asking to change the definitions, if you would like to change the meaning of statuses. 4. Leaving this ticket and others which conflict with your usage alone, unless the meanings are actually changed, or you otherwise have something to *contribute* to them.