-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 11:08:41 -0400 "Nathan L. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > | 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. > > Again, Gentoo is not a large corporation or Debian.
I don't see how Gentoo's status (or rather lack thereof) as a corporation or Debian has anything to do with encouraging peer review. > The assumption is > that the majority of fixes are done correctly the first time, and this > assumption is valid. I don't see how you could prove that assumption. If you can, please do so. > Hence, the default behaviour is to mark bugs as > RESOLVED, with reopening being an entirely legitimate and encouraged > response for those occasional instances where the resolution was not > sufficient. > There are plenty of devs who don't share in the viewpoint that reopening bugs is legitimate and should encouraged (although I agree it is and should be). I base opinion that on some of the kicking and screaming I've seen on bugzilla in the past. ;) Nathan -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFC0T+c2QTTR4CNEQARAmhWAJ485c4s5MjMzQRUrCn4rR06qB/nDwCfQowx KGJfs0VkcxZO3yHOKKIPFwE= =LdlM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
