[Minimally-knowledgeable user interjecting here:]
Would it help if “possibly complete” bugs were (somehow) easily
distinguishable from other Incomplete bugs? By “possibly complete” I
mean a bug that is marked as Incomplete, but that has had “some”
activity since being marked Incomplete. “Some”
On 27/09/2007 Sarah Hobbs wrote:
>
> You know, it's mails like this that make me really feel that it's not
> worth triaging bugs, or aiming for a reasonably decent QA.
>
Pardon me, but how would you have reacted if the contents of my previous
e-mail had been "it's when I waste an hour in reboots
Sarah Hobbs wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> You know, it's mails like this that make me really feel that it's not
> worth triaging bugs, or aiming for a reasonably decent QA.
>
> It's when you start dealing with ~1000 bugs over a few source packages
> that this kind of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
You know, it's mails like this that make me really feel that it's not
worth triaging bugs, or aiming for a reasonably decent QA.
It's when you start dealing with ~1000 bugs over a few source packages
that this kind of stuff gets interesting. Yes, one
On 22/09/2007 Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
> 60 days is to short. Even if we set a time, there are classes of bugs (such
> as crashes) that even if incomplete are not invalid (a crash bug is always a
> bug). I don't think bugs should get marked invalid except manually.
Also, how do we deal with t
