To avoid misunderstanding arising from my unclear way of communicating: I propose(d):
Let us base ourselves on integration testing whenever we can. Let us seek affirmation by reporters whenever we can. Let us not take the luxury to require both before closing issue but act on either. On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Raja Pullela <raja.pull...@citrix.com> wrote: > Daan, appreciate the quick response... we can go that route for the less > Priorities ones and higher priorities ones, we should make an effort to > validate/close. Otherwise, not sure when we will be able to bring the counts > down ? blockers/criticals are higher risk items as well... > > Other things we can do - if some of the issues are very old, we can potential > close them with no verification. > For example - there are a total of 1745 issues and out of which 683 were > resolved within the last year. So, we can decide to close the issues that > were fixed more than an year ago or two years ago - that way we can have > less counts to manage... just a thought... > > Raja > -----Original Message----- > From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2015 3:20 PM > To: dev > Subject: Re: defects cleanup drive... > > Raja, thanks for picking this up. I have practiced the principle of awaiting > (at least verbal) confirmation from the reporter that an issue could indeed > be closed. With the increased activity on integration tests we might base > ourselves on that. > > ideas? > > On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Raja Pullela <raja.pull...@citrix.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> There are a number of Resolved Defects and was wondering if some of us can >> work on closing the defects - I know this is one of the things that >> Sebastien had on the To Dos... >> Following is a snapshot from today... >> Blockers : 114 >> Criticals : 556 >> Majors : 915 >> Minors and Trivial: 133 >> >> Any suggestions... please let me know... I will go down from higher priority >> ones... >> >> best, >> Raja >> > > > > -- > Daan -- Daan
