Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Closing bugs [was: New Bugzilla HOWTO]

["Nathan L. Adams" <nadams@ieee.org>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 11:08:41 -0400 "Nathan L. Adams" <nadams@ieee.org>
> wrote:
> | Maybe as a start, the Developer's Guide can be revised to state that:
> | 
> | "Ideally any bug that a fix is submitted for should be verified and
> | peer reviewed. It should be verified by the reporter or another user.
> | If the reporter or another user are unable or unwilling to verify the
> | fix, the Team Lead should take responsibility for the verification.
> | Ideally, all bug fixes should be peer reviewed by the Team Lead and/or
> | other team members before the bug is marked as RESOLVED.
> 
> Again, Gentoo is not a large corporation or Debian.


I don't see how Gentoo's status (or rather lack thereof) as a
corporation or Debian has anything to do with encouraging peer review.

> The assumption is
> that the majority of fixes are done correctly the first time, and this
> assumption is valid.

I don't see how you could prove that assumption. If you can, please do so.

> Hence, the default behaviour is to mark bugs as
> RESOLVED, with reopening being an entirely legitimate and encouraged
> response for those occasional instances where the resolution was not
> sufficient.
> 

There are plenty of devs who don't share in the viewpoint that reopening
bugs is legitimate and should encouraged (although I agree it is and
should be). I base opinion that on some of the kicking and screaming
I've seen on bugzilla in the past. ;)

Nathan

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFC0T+c2QTTR4CNEQARAmhWAJ485c4s5MjMzQRUrCn4rR06qB/nDwCfQowx
KGJfs0VkcxZO3yHOKKIPFwE=
=LdlM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list