https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50815
--- Comment #6 from Anastasius Focht focht@gmx.net --- Hello Zeb,
--- quote --- What point is there in distinguishing between unconfirmed and confirmed? --- quote ---
'NEW' / 'CONFIRMED' = The bug was processed/reproduced by another person and/or the information from OP is trustworthy enough to assume that the bug is most likely valid. Not a hundred percent guarantee tho but still higher than 'UNCONFIRMED'.
Strictly speaking there is indeed no point because 'CONFIRMED' and 'UNCONFIRMED' statuses do not reflect whether a bug has been truly triaged (root cause identified) or not. For me this kind of information would be worth to capture in a publicly visible field (status, keyword).
For me bugs with status 'UNCONFIRMED' always had a higher priority for triaging than ten year old untriaged bugs with status 'NEW' (unless it's the random pick of the day). But that's a rather weak, subjective selection criteria.
Currently there are:
* 4178 bug reports with 'UNCONFIRMED' status * 3112 bug reports with 'NEW' status
Albeit not really related but the one thing that is becoming apparent to me with this discussion is the need to better mark/identify triaged bugs. Kind of the equivalent to bugs marked as 'STAGED'. I have few advanced search filters for that but those are not that accurate. Tags are one option but they are only visible to the user (= for my own benefit only). But that's a different discussion.
Coming back to the original topic: anything that avoids 'NEW' can be already considered an improvement, regardless if it's a direct replacement with less ambiguous name or a new simplified status.
Regards