Re: [Nautilus-list] [Feedback Request] Tutorial --- How to Verify Nautilus Bugs

[Ali Abdin <ALIABDIN aucegypt edu>]

On Sat, 9 Sep 2000, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> Eli Goldberg <eli eazel com> writes:
> 
> > Hey, all ---
> > 
> >     I threw together a tutorial for the impending Nautilus Quality
> > Engineering site, to teach GNOME enthusiasts how to verify Nautilus
> > bugs.
> > 
> >     As many of you know, we're desperately in need of verification help,
> > and it's a very easy, non-committal way for interested people to make a
> > major difference in the quality of Nautilus in their spare time.
> > 
> >     If anyone has any feedback before this is posted publically, the
> > temporary URL is:
> > 
> >     <http://www.prometheus-music.com/eazel/nautilusqa-verifybugs.html>
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Eli
> > 
> > P.S. I'm currently assuming that we don't need to verify
> > duplicate/invalid/worksforme bugs right now given the number of
> > unverified fixed bugs. If anyone has a strong case for why they should
> > be included, I'll gladly include instructions for those, as well.
> > 
> 
> WORKSFORME should be verified in my opinion - it's sort of the same as
> FIXED only you're claiming it was never broken as far as you know.
> 
> DUPLICATE likely does not need verification.
> 
> And I'm not sure about INVALID because I don't know what that state is
> supposed to mean.

I think INVALID is for 'bogus' bug reports. I jumped to a conclusion and 
filed a bug report against a function, but that function was behaving 
correctly. i.e. My bug report was 'incorrect'

Regards,
Ali