Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] process for getting bugfixes and security updates into stable grimoire

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Matthew Clark <MatthewClark AT InLesserTerms.net>
  • To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] process for getting bugfixes and security updates into stable grimoire
  • Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 12:24:12 -0500

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



Matthew Clark wrote:
> I always click 'Reply to All' -- is this not correct?

I looked in my Sent Items, and saw that I did not reply to all as I
stated that I did.

Geeze, I must be losing my mind... I could swear...

>
> Arwed von Merkatz wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 11:10:23AM -0500, Matthew Clark wrote:
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>> Replying to list, you should do the same Matthew, so other's can see
>>> what you're writing ;)
>>>
>>>> Arwed von Merkatz wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 08:28:56AM -0700, Eric Sandall wrote:
>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Arwed von Merkatz wrote:
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>> I'm not sure. Overall I don't think that the whole FIXED -> VERIFIED
>>>>>>> ->
>>>>>>> CLOSED process is working too well for us, and I don't really see a
>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>> to.
>>>>>>> Why not just resolve stuff as FIXED and have it reopened if it's not
>>>>>>> fixed for the reporter? That's imho much easier. It drops the explicit
>>>>>>> verification step, but do we need that one?
>>>>>> While not everyone uses VERIFIED and CLOSED, they are handy for a
>>>>>> proper
>>>>>> bug tracking system as it is good to know that what was done to mark it
>>>>>> as FIXED actually worked for the reporter. Otherwise, when someone
>>>>>> comes
>>>>>> along later and does a REOPEN we don't know if that's because the fix
>>>>>> didn't really work or what.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd rather we tried to have people use the methods we have than change
>>>>>> the methods to make it 'easier'.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, I realized that after writing.
>>>>> In general VERIFIED + CLOSED is a good idea. The problem is that not
>>>>> everyone verifies fixed bugs, so how about we define a time period after
>>>>> which a bug is assumed verified and can be closed? Say a month after it
>>>>> got FIXED?
>>>>>
>>>> Does that mean a maintainer (or whoever fixed the bug) would have to
>>>> remember to come back and mark the bug as VERIFIED in a month?
>>>
>>> It should be easy enough to create a bugzilla query listing all bugs
>>> assigned to you that are marked FIXED and haven't changed in a month so
>>> they can be VERIFIED/CLOSED.
>>>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEY3M87vwGAOVJvJ8RAs60AJ45WEOdKYIYl8j+75qF7q17cE9WYwCfQau/
ifQ1c1E9D/hwR3aX4J68/lE=
=AtIW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page