On 14.09.2012 01:36, Katherine Marsden wrote:
On 9/13/2012 3:49 PM, Myrna van Lunteren wrote:
I thought the idea was that resolving is was done by the person who
worked the issue, the closing was to be done by the person who logged
the issue, to indicate agreement with the resolution.
Yes, does that have any reporting value vs just adding a comment? If
so, I suppose the folks resolving the issue could just make a note to
add the label when resolving for issues that are not suitable for
backport as well as make a note to check the other pertinent
information so reopens won't be as necessary.
1) Typically, I only keep an issue at resolved (as opposed to closed) in
order to indicate I am still considering further backports (iff I filed
the issue myself).
2) For bugs reported by others, I do leave them resolved for the other
party to close when issue is deemed solved: I don't ask for it to be
closed until I'm done considering backports. (Note: that doesn't mean my
issue couldn't be backported further, just that I don't have an
inclination to do it.. ;-)
For the first case, I guess a final comment on backports (and/or current
flag blocking further backports) would suffice.
For the second case, not sure.. I think it does have some value vs
users. It seems the root cause here is that the closed state forbids
editing. I guess we won't be able to lift this across all projects, even
if technically feasible in JIRA.
Hmm.. it gets messy. Could we build a tool to wrap the operations we
want to perform in reopen-op-close? ;-)
Dag
OR
I could stop whining as I only have to do this a few times a year #:)
