Hi Bjoern, Robinson, all
Thank you for your feedback and clarifications
I agree with that...
Regards
Pierre-Yves
___
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org
Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 5:46 AM, Bjoern Michaelsen
wrote:
> are doing it wrong then. RESOLVED means "claimed to be fixed on the source
> code
> on the master branch"
I agree
> VERIFIED means "checked in the revision claimed",
(or a later one)
> CLOSED
> means "released in a finalized version
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 06:41:52AM -0700, pierre-yves samyn wrote:
> Some bugs are submitted by users who do not test the daily versions.
The reply to that might sound harsh, but there is no other way to put it: They
are doing it wrong then. RESOLVED means "claimed to be fixed on the source
.
Regards
Pierre-Yves
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Try-not-to-reopen-bugs-when-anything-more-than-a-trivial-amount-of-time-has-passed-tp4144272p410.html
Sent from the QA mailing list archive at Nabble.com
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 12:03:48PM +0100, Michael Stahl wrote:
> 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?
So, I thought:
- bugs go from RESOLVED to
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 exis
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 07:33:03PM +0100, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
> all bugs(*). One could have a bot setting bugs from RESOLVED to VERIFIED
> though, if there is not objection ("verified by silent approval")
... after the suggested "a month" timeframe, that is obviously.
Best,
Bjoern
_
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 08:19:00AM -0700, Joel Madero wrote:
> Okay - so what should the actual REOPENED be used for (if anything)?
> Should only developers use it? Since QA is using it wrong (I think you
> referring to one I changed), users use it wrong all the timejust
> curious what its
Hi,
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
/nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Try-not-to-reopen-bugs-when-anything-more-than-a-trivial-amount-of-time-has-passed-tp4144272p4144336.html
Sent from the QA mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail addre
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Caolán McNamara wrote:
> I happy enough with reopened in the cases where the dev claims to fix
> the problem and sets it to fixed, tester tests and find it doesn't work.
> Turnaround time there would ideally be sort of next day or two, but up
> to a month seems the
On Tue, 2015-03-24 at 08:29 -0700, Joel Madero wrote:
>
> On 03/24/2015 08:23 AM, Pedro wrote:
> > Michael Stahl-2 wrote
> >> actually, would it be possible in our bugzilla to disallow a transition
> >> from RESOLVED -> REOPENED except if the user is a well-known QA or
> >> developer with a specia
On 03/24/2015 08:23 AM, Pedro wrote:
> Michael Stahl-2 wrote
>> actually, would it be possible in our bugzilla to disallow a transition
>> from RESOLVED -> REOPENED except if the user is a well-known QA or
>> developer with a special bugzilla privilege?
well I'm the one who made the mistake this
tfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Try-not-to-reopen-bugs-when-anything-more-than-a-trivial-amount-of-time-has-passed-tp4144272p4144312.html
Sent from the QA mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address:
Hi Caolan -
On 03/24/2015 04:36 AM, Caolán McNamara wrote:
> It generally doesn't make sense to reopen a bug after a few months has
> passed since it was closed.
I wonder if removing REOPENED all together is appropriate then - it
seems like it has no place outside of a very very narrow 30 day wind
On 24.03.2015 12:36, Caolán McNamara wrote:
> It generally doesn't make sense to reopen a bug after a few months has
> passed since it was closed.
indeed doing that is very annoying. personally i've started to simply
ignore bugs in state REPOENED some time ago, they are generally very
confusing a
It generally doesn't make sense to reopen a bug after a few months has
passed since it was closed.
a) The person its "assigned" to may have moved on, changed jobs, or died
and so is not in a position to help anymore so the bug appears to
"belong" to someone, but isn't really and anyone looking for
17 matches
Mail list logo
