From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DrH2v-0007tx-SI for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 09 Jul 2005 15:15:14 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j69FDZt4012835; Sat, 9 Jul 2005 15:13:35 GMT Received: from outbound4.mail.tds.net (outbound4.mail.tds.net [216.170.230.94]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j69FBJEt029178 for ; Sat, 9 Jul 2005 15:11:19 GMT Received: from cerberus.oppresses.us (h69-21-250-115.69-21.unk.tds.net [69.21.250.115]) by outbound4.mail.tds.net (8.13.4/8.12.2) with ESMTP id j69FBcqb021192 for ; Sat, 9 Jul 2005 10:11:38 -0500 (CDT) Received: by cerberus.oppresses.us (Postfix, from userid 500) id 5DA454ABFB; Sat, 9 Jul 2005 11:11:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 11:11:37 -0400 From: Jon Portnoy To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Closing bugs [was: New Bugzilla HOWTO] Message-ID: <20050709151137.GA22244@cerberus.oppresses.us> References: <20050708110820.03693d17@localhost> <42CE669F.6020502@ieee.org> <200507082150.32935.vapier@gentoo.org> <42CF48A3.2080905@ieee.org> <1120903880.6495.18.camel@lycan.lan> <42CFE536.1050504@ieee.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <42CFE536.1050504@ieee.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-Archives-Salt: 76e49f87-09db-49fc-950c-10d875ebf68d X-Archives-Hash: 29bd06823a265dba236d62a176ba5e2d On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 10:54:46AM -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Martin Schlemmer wrote: > > Problem is many of us have sometimes already too many bugs to care about > > users reporting something, and then never coming back, not even talking > > about keeping to poke the reporter to come back and say the fix works > > fine, and close it. Thus the fix it, test it, resolve the bug as Fixed, > > and if the user do not reopen it, your work is done. > > > > Again, that's why I suggest that the verification be assigned to the > Team Lead. Its not like you have to 'poke the reporter' 1000 times > before the Team Lead does the verification [him|her]self. > > I mean the Team Lead is supposed to help the team members along with a > little peer review, right? This process would just encourage more peer > review, right? And one of the biggest strengths of F/OSS is.... PEER > REVIEW!! > So when can we discuss the salaries you're going to pay the team leads to waste fairly significant quantities of time staring over everybody's shoulder? 8) -- Jon Portnoy avenj/irc.freenode.net -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list