proposal for naming blocker and NTH bugs

[Kamil Paral]

> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 02:51, Andre Robatino
> <robatino at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> > 17Alpha
> > 17AlphaNTH
> > 17Beta
> > 17BetaNTH
> > 17Final (or alternatively 17)
> > 17FinalNTH (or alternatively 17NTH)
> 
> Why not:
> 17AlphaBlocker
> 17AlphaNTH
> 17BetaBlocker
> 17BetaNTH
> 17FinalBlocker
> 17FinalNTH
> ... verbosity can be such a great thing! ;) Maybe even consider
> expanding NTH, i.e. 17FinalNiceToHave. The more people understand
> without looking things up, the better.
> 
> Personally, I'd stick with F17 instead of 17, but can't find any very
> good reason (either way) :)

They field is called "Blocks:", so there doesn't need to be "Blocker" suffix. I think this is pretty self-explanatory:

Blocks: F17Beta

I would also add F-prefix, it just looks better.

Whether to use Andre's or Sandro's proposal, I don't care. But I agree they are more obvious than current naming scheme. The "-accepted" word makes you think those blockers were accepted, and it's not the case. They are just NTH.