Craig McClanahan wrote on Friday, July 07, 2006 6:43 AM:
> On 7/6/06, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> One more thing along these lines. I can't remember where I saw an
>> intelligent explanation of how we should use "closed" vs. "resolved"
>> in Jira. I guess a reasonable approach given the above strategy
>> would be to wait to close until the fix version is actually
>> released, unless the closing is "won't fix" or "invalid" (in which
>> case, there is no fix version). Is that right?
>
>
> FWIW, I can describe how we differentiate these two in my day job ...
> developers change the state to "Resolved/Fixed" if they claim
> to have fixed
> it, or something similar ("Resolved/Will Not Fix" or "Resolved/Not A
> Bug") for other scenarios, but QA is the one that switches it to
> "Closed" after they have verified that the fix works. In open source,
> theoretically we
> would want the original bug reporter to do that, but it seems
> unlikely to happen in the general case. For Apache stuff, I tend to
> focus only on "unresolved" issues, and not worry about the difference
> between "resolved"
> and "closed".
In XStream I follow the philosophy, that I set the fixed bug to "resolve" and
let the reporter verify that his case is solved. If I don't get a return, I
close these issues right before the release anyway. Similar situation for "Will
Not Fix" or "Invalid", the reporter should have a chance to give better
arguments or evidence of the problem. Works quite well.
- Jörg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
