On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 14:29:09 +0200 "Valentin Villenave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/6/10 Carl D. Sorensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Valentin, > > > > I may be wrong (after all, you're the bugmeister), but I think you > > are using status codes differently than they have been used in the > > past. > > > > It appears that you use "Verified" when a bug is fixed. In the > > past, I believe that "Verified" means that the bug report has been > > found to actually be a bug, and that "Fixed" is used when the bug > > is no longer occuring. > > It may be the orthodox way. I use to mark issues as "Accepted" when > I've been able to reproduce the bug. "Verified", currently, means I > have checked that the bug is fixed (or made invalid for any reason), > and that I probably won't have to look at it again. That's the way it's always been in lilypond. It's not terribly intuitive, but lilypond has been consistent in this. Carl: think of "verified" as "QA has verified the claim made by the devel team". (such claims are generally either "fixed" or "invalid") Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond