Hi, On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 10:46:24AM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: > I'd like to check if maybe I misunderstood our bugzilla handling > standards. > > I thought we close the bug when the fix is committed in all branches > where it should be, and that's what I was doing in the bugs I was > fixing. > > But obviously, if our community standards are the other way round, > I'll follow them. > > > I asked because I have now lived several times now that several > developers close a bug I'm CCed to as soon as they commit the fix to > master.
To me, RESOLVED/FIXED means simply "the bug is fixed". Which it is as soon as I push the fix into master. > > The disadvantage of the latter method is that these bugs appear > crossed out in the "most annoying" (and other) lists. > > Its advantage, maybe, is that it goes away from said developer's > list: their job is "finished" so it should get the hell out of their > TODO list. Right. Because the next step, review of my proposed fix for inclusion in older branch(es), depends on _other_ developers. > > I've come to see this last point as not completely obvious, and maybe > even wrong: when I commit a fix to master, I regard it as also my job > to get it backported to the other branches, Nobody has claimed otherwise. > so my job on this bug is > _not_ finished, so it makes sense for it to linger in my TODO list > until the fix is everywhere it should. > But this part is handled separately from bugzilla, via the ML (or gerrit). D. _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
