Difference between "Won't fix" and "Rejected" resolutions?

Question

In JIRA (v4.4#649-r158309), for resolving an issue I see, among others, the options "Won't fix" and "Rejected".

The help box defines the first as "The problem described is an issue which will never be fixed" and the second as "This issue is not considered for fix or implementation. Please see any comments for detailed reasons".

I don't really see a striking difference between these two definitions. Is there any/when should I use which resolution, or is it by mistake that there are both options?

Martin Rust · Answer

Just FYI, my admin intended "Won't fix" to mean that a developer has decided it technically cannot be fixed, and "Rejected" to mean that a fix would be technically possible, but was judiciously rejected. But in our team we're all not English native speakers, so our interpretation is not authoritative ;)  And yes @Jamie, I advocate merging the two together.

JamieA · Answer

I don't even agree with Norman's definition. Won't fix means "Will not", not "Would not", and to me it means that it is indeed a bug but the impact or benefit is not worth the effort to fix, whereas Rejected means the bug could not be reproduced or was a user misunderstanding. IMHO you should keep the list of resolutions as small as possible, and not try to cram too much meaning into them.

Norman Abramovitz · Answer

You are correct you need to ask.  From an English language point of 'would not fix' means there is no merit to the idea, while 'rejected' means there was some merit to the idea but will not be fixing it.  The difference measures the severity of the rejection.