Le 12/05/11 18:28, Christian Lohmaier a écrit : Hi *,
> > Actually only 30 unconfirmed ones (well, those that use the unconfirmed > state). > I don't know who would have the rights to do so, but enforcing > unconfirmed state for non-developer/non-qa people might make sense to > get a better overview. Pardon for butting in, but I have to agree with Christian on this one. Bugzilla is a bit of a PITA for its, errmm, lack of a rigourous QA triage setting. > No, that's not quite correct. OOo had a needmoreinfo keyword, not a > needmoreinfo status - And fdo bugzilla has a NEEDINFO keyword, so > pretty much the same. > The big difference was that only people with special IZ permissions > could promote an issue from unconfirmed state to new state. > > fdo bugzilla even has the NEEDINFO bug status - but that rather is the > final resolution after there was no response after a while (like > closing the issue as worksforme or invalid in OOo's IssueZilla) > > The first step would be to make use of Unconfirmed state, then > QA-volunteers can direct their efforts to those that have not yet been > reviewed. Well said. Does that also mean we could also signal confirmed bugs to the relevant "recognised" developer if there is one ? That's what we could do on QA in OOo. However, I fear my pet module, Base, may find itself in somewhat of a dead end ;-) Alex -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
