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 1DrHXV-0006qk-0j
for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 09 Jul 2005 15:46:49 +0000
Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j69Fjq6E015666;
Sat, 9 Jul 2005 15:45:52 GMT
Received: from smtp20.libero.it (smtp20.libero.it [193.70.192.147])
by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j69FiCZA018358
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sat, 9 Jul 2005 15:44:12 GMT
Received: from localhost (172.16.1.83) by smtp20.libero.it (7.0.027-DD01)
id 41D02C9802A71DB2 for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Sat, 9 Jul 2005 17:44:32 +0200
Received: from garbage.localdomain (151.52.4.142) by smtp2.libero.it (7.0.027-DD01)
id 42C48C59003E2B95 for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Sat, 9 Jul 2005 17:44:32 +0200
From: Gregorio Guidi <greg_g@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Closing bugs [was: New Bugzilla HOWTO]
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 17:44:31 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.8.1
References: <20050708110820.03693d17@localhost> <1120903880.6495.18.camel@lycan.lan> <42CFE536.1050504@ieee.org>
In-Reply-To: <42CFE536.1050504@ieee.org>
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200507091744.32073.greg_g@gentoo.org>
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at libero.it serv4
X-Archives-Salt: 81a9cece-8ab4-42f0-90ca-a5ca6fe07ca9
X-Archives-Hash: 77abf2480c5c8bbef3aef6c846176c4e
On Saturday 09 July 2005 16:54, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
> 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!!
Any proposal that implies an enourmous increase of our human resources is
really useless for us.
Please accept the fact that we cannot change our resources at will, and adapt
any suggestion to this simple principle.
Gregorio
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list