On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 23:21:31 +0100, "Luis Sergio Oliveira" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Currently, when an issue is resolved, you have the developer's opinion > it is fixed. It is already good, but, why not allow it to be verified > afterwards and have a supporting issue life cycle that is capable of > registering that? The reason is to reduce non-useful work, allowing that time to be spent on other things. If verifying an issue is something that is optional (it sounds like it is), then we should have that as a policy clearly stated in the cookbook. In my opinion, verifying issues should be a lower priority than most of our P5 defects. If a person feels strongly about an issue he reported (or cc'd himself on), he will check it when it is marked as resolved. If no-one feels strongly about an issue any longer (e.g. original reporter left the scene and no-one else was cc'd), then what is the problem with accepting the developer's opinion that it was fixed? There is a difference between an idealistic workflow and a realistic one. The problem is that idealistic workflows often depend on ideal amounts of resource, and are often unnecessarily complex. Regards, Dave --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
