The 'new' status was for those issues that had been added by random Joes
(not members of the bug squad) and then it was changed to 'Accepted'
once the issue was checked - else it would be marked invalid or
duplicate (or even merged). If we're going to keep 'blank' then we could
even do way with the 'new' status.
True, I did myself make some thoughts on merging those two fields: i.e.
replacing Status:Started by Status:Patch_new etc. After all,
Status:Fixed would be a fitful successor to Status:Patch_push.
Actually 'Fixed' could be also potentially removed as well and the label
Fixed_X_x_x be used in it's place.
Patch labels of blank/new/review/countdown/needs_work/waiting
Other Labels - included the documentation/ugly/enhancement etc. but with
the custom label of Fixed_X_x_x as part of that.
Status:Patch_abandoned would mark an issue as ‘suspended’.
Suspended for whom? Either an issue is being worked on or it isn't
(let's forget those in the patch review process, invalids and
duplicates) and we seem to have 'waiting' for that 'suspension' -
although I still have a hard time wondering why 'waiting and needs_work'
can't be merged, but anyway - this is about abandoned.
Started != Patch_new, if for instance someone was working their way to a
patch but had to have a conversation with the group or something like
that first.
Do people look at the 'patch_abandoned' issues differently compared to
those that have never been started? I don't know I am not a programmer,
but I wouldn't be surprised if they were.
I came to the conclusion that it wasn’t worth the effort of updating all
the DB.
Well that's a different topic - and the mass edit <ahem> if it worked
properly, would make that trivial. Ideally we ought to be checking that
the really old ones that show some ugly output or similar still apply
today.