User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:37.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/37.0 Build ID: 20150402191859 Steps to reproduce: n/a Actual results: n/a Expected results: n/a The current 4-value flag status system in Bugzilla allows users to request, approve or deny certain "things" (and things is the best way to name it here). Depending on the flag and extensive flag description, the user may get a better idea about when to use one of the selectable values '?', '+', '-'. In many cases, the combination of the flag name and status value do not provide enough contextual information, so that a user is forced to read the title of the flag itself. A more descriptive status helps to avoid ambiguity. A "feedback" or "needsinfo" flag currently carries the following meanings: feedback ? <user> - requested feedback from <user> feedback + - feedback given by <user>, but not necessarily sufficient feedback - - no feedback given by <user> OR not sufficient A status description helps: feedback requested <user> - requested feedback from <user> feedback provided - feedback providedby <user> (but not necessarily sufficient) feedback not given - no feedback given by <user> The attached patch implements a new table "flagstatusdescs", which allows administrators to provide more elaborate descriptions of flag status values. The descriptions can be configured on creating or editing flags (code-wise limited to the hard-coded four values, but the table itself supports arbitrary entries). The descriptions are displayed on creating, editing or viewing bugs, the search features do not use them. The descriptions map to the internally used status values, so that other parts of Bugzilla are not affected by the change.

Please attach your patch to bug 353690 as a starting point. Your patch has the problem that the backend code will still use +, -, ?, and a user looking for bugs with "feedback not given" won't get any data back, because the search code will only understand "feedback-". This is a problem which will need to be fixed, and continuing the discussion in bug 353690 which already has a lot of comments and CC'ed users is a better place.