Re: Bug reporting [Was: Promoting greater integration between testers!:)]

On Mon, 2003-06-30 at 15:16, Owen Taylor wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-06-30 at 14:53, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> > <quote who="Owen Taylor">
> > 
> > > Fromthe GTK+ bug perspective I hate the idea of one more
> > > step to deal with incoming bug reports ...
> > 
> > You can RESOLVE/WONTFIX an UNCONFIRMED bug, so it won't be an additional
> > step unless you begin to avoid looking through UNCONFIRMED bugs as part of
> > your developer-side process.
> The point is not that we can't close bugs without confirming them, 
> but that a great deal of incoming bugs for GTK+ *are* not immediate
> closed. There are three approaches we could take:
>  A) Just blanket confirm all GTK+ bugs periodically
>  B) Try to decide on some objective criterion for confirming
>     a GTK+ bug. (Picking some random recent bug, what would you
>     say for
>  C) Just leave bugs UNCONFIRMED
> A) and B) are extra work, C) is aesthetically unappealing.

For all intents and purposes, you review and milestone every bug, right?
If that's the case, the difference between a bug being UNCONFIRMED and
being new and unmilestoned would be (for GTK) very minimal. 


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]