On 22/03/2016 Marcus wrote:
@all:
It seems we could have a consensus in creating a new MANAGED or DONE
status to set when issues are no real code problems, but more
user-oriented. Finally, they were solved for the user's satisfaction
(e.g., provided how-to's or repaired documents, etc.). However, no fix
in the source code has been done.
When something is fixed, it's fixed. Why bother inventing new terminology?
For an issue that impacts code (example: update a library)
RESOLVED-FIXED means that the source code was updated. Bugzilla tracks
the relevant commit. A target might be set by the developer who is
taking care of the fix to make it clearer what version will contain the
fix. I always use it, but I don't consider it mandatory.
For an issue that does not impact code (example: fix a page on the Wiki)
I've always used RESOLVED-FIXED too. I don't see a reason to
differentiate this case from the one above: for the reporter, this is fixed.
Still, if we want to differentiate, I agree that we could be stricter in
always assigning a target when something is marked RESOLVED-FIXED (at
latest). If it is a code fix the target will be a version, if it is not
related to any specific version the target will be the new NONE (or N/A,
or whatever conveys the meaning of "not applicable").
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
