On 24.03.2015 19:33, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote: > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 01:29:21PM -0400, Robinson Tryon wrote: >> It sounds like the ideal situation would be for a bug to be in some >> kind of 'fluid' state for some time after it's ostensibly fixed >> (say, a month) > > That workflow already exists in bugzilla, however it is not how we are using > it: > > - developer fixes issue, says "its fixed in build xyz" -> RESOLVED/FIXED > - "QA" (or for us: anyone else but the commiter of the fix, first of all the > reporter) checks that build and either sets it to VERIFIED/FIXED or REOPENED > - Once the product is released to the public with the fix the bug goes from > VERIFIED to CLOSED > > With that workflow a sensible approach would be that a bug can never be > REOPENED > once it was VERIFIED. However, I dont think we want to manually "VERIFIED" for > all bugs(*). One could have a bot setting bugs from RESOLVED to VERIFIED > though, if there is not objection ("verified by silent approval"). While this > could help making clear that reporters are expected to verify fixes in a > timely > manner, it would create quite a lot of extra noise on the tracker ...
that sounds reasonable, although setting it to VERIFIED automatically seems odd - how about automatically going from either RESOLVED or VERIFIED to CLOSED after 2 weeks or a month? _______________________________________________ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/