-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jon Portnoy wrote: > On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 09:49:16AM -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote: > >>To restate the problem: When a dev submits a fix for a bug, it should be >>verified and peer reviewed before the bug is marked done. >> > > > That's not a problem, that's an opinion. > > I'm not at all convinced that not having every bug resolution reviewed > every time is a problem, maybe you should start there :) >
Well originally I was going for "any bug that a dev thinks has merit", but after reading some of the replies I'm now leaning towards "any bug that a dev submits a fix for". And I've also fielded the idea that it only be mandatory for certain critical products such as Portage. Maybe as a start, the Developer's Guide can be revised to state that: "Ideally any bug that a fix is submitted for should be verified and peer reviewed. It should be verified by the reporter or another user. If the reporter or another user are unable or unwilling to verify the fix, the Team Lead should take responsibility for the verification. Ideally, all bug fixes should be peer reviewed by the Team Lead and/or other team members before the bug is marked as RESOLVED. The following products have been deemed critical, and therefor must follow the above process: X Y Z" Then it becomes a completely optional 'best practice' for the vast majority of bugs. Nathan -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFC0Tn52QTTR4CNEQARAliRAJ9CNmaI5OnHd4i1w0UKHEBq2e9XxgCgk2Hh 4Ep0I76PAIb9ItQCmD/929E= =YQOy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
