<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><p dir="ltr" class="">Curiously, this keyword’s first name was “proposedEasyHack”, which at some point was found “confusing” by someone. I just find it a bit funny that a similar name is being proposed now… ;-)</p></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>I too found needsEasyhackEvaluation a bit curious.<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">But I have to admit that the current use:</div><div class=""> keyword=easyhack and status=NEEDINFO</div><div class="">is not the best way to do it.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">So adding a keyword seemed as a sensible option, I preferred just to keep keyword=needsDevEval, since that can be used independent of easy hack, but I leave that decision to the QA team.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">the renaming of keyword=needAdvice to keyword=needsConfirmationAdvice is a bit strange to me. If a bug is not confirmed, it has status=UNCONFIRMED, so I am unsure why we keep needAdvice/needsConfirmationAdvice</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">We should be careful not to have too many keywords, and especially not to make workflows into changing keywords. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">rgds</div><div class="">jan I</div><div class=""><br class=""></div></div></div></div></body></html>