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 1DrhVE-0008VT-V7 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 10 Jul 2005 19:30:13 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j6AJT4II005345; Sun, 10 Jul 2005 19:29:04 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j6AJRPti003497 for ; Sun, 10 Jul 2005 19:27:25 GMT Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2] helo=ciao.gmane.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DrhT2-0000Br-E0 for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Sun, 10 Jul 2005 19:27:56 +0000 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1DrhSx-0005V6-Nd for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Sun, 10 Jul 2005 21:27:51 +0200 Received: from 206-163-249-202.yktn.hsdb.sasknet.sk.ca ([206.163.249.202]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 10 Jul 2005 21:27:51 +0200 Received: from dirtyepic.sk by 206-163-249-202.yktn.hsdb.sasknet.sk.ca with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 10 Jul 2005 21:27:51 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: R Hill Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Closing bugs [was: New Bugzilla HOWTO] Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:27:37 -0600 Message-ID: References: <42CF49EF.7090105@gentoo.org> <42CFE915.9070402@ieee.org> <42D1275C.1060800@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=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 206-163-249-202.yktn.hsdb.sasknet.sk.ca User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0+ (X11/20050710) In-Reply-To: <42D1275C.1060800@ieee.org> Sender: news X-Archives-Salt: fb337123-7c51-464a-bd31-cfe52cecb84e X-Archives-Hash: 05a385824c5100f45a34c277bc2b1684 Nathan L. Adams wrote: > I'm assuming that this would only apply to cases where the dev has > provided a fix (in most cases I assume they would have reproduced the > problem). The reporter's test would have the benefits mentioned above, > and if the Team Lead tested, they could review the fix for technical > correctness, etc. > Again, my suggestion attempts to improve the process farther down > stream; the problem of validating new bugs and tagging them > appropriately is a separate matter. Ah, okay. You're talking about patch review. Now this makes sense. I've always considered the Verified status to be indicative that a third party has been able to reproduce the bug, not that a fix has been "approved". My mistake. --de. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list