-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 R Hill wrote: > Nathan L. Adams wrote: >> But come on guys, I'm suggesting *one* look at a bug by an independent >> party before marking it done. > > > That's reasonable, but I don't see that party being a Team Lead or even > a dev. If there's a bug filed and another user can confirm it, it's > Verified. That's the whole idea behind the status.
I'm suggesting that the Team Lead be ultimately responsible, not that the TL has to verify each bug. The best case would be that all bugs get verified by the reporter (or another user as you suggest). The worst case is that no reporters or other users verify the bug, so *then* the TL gets the job. > I don't really see much to gain by adding another step in the bug > reporting process. Some projects use it, some don't. I don't think > b.g.o is formal enough re. bugzilla to warrant it. I'm suggesting that making b.g.o a *little* more formal might be a Good Thing. What do you think about adding the step only to certain critical products, such as Portage or maybe Catalyst or even the Installation Docs? > I do agree with the original point. Reports shouldn't be marked > resolved unless the bug is fixed or permanent, or not enough info is > given to verify that a bug actually exists. As Mike keeps pointing out, the NEEDINFO status covers bugs that a dev can't reproduce, etc. But my suggestion only covers bugs that a dev has provided a fix for (irreguardless of whether the dev reproduced the bug or not). Nathan -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFC0Sjc2QTTR4CNEQARAvCdAJ4tJaecjuA2mQRtiOZ8O9pDOt4kHQCfaMGP wtIxSh8fX218TXlYyOfBgQs= =iPoD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
