Dave Thompson wrote:
If verifying an issue is something that is optional (it sounds like it
is), then we should have that as a policy clearly stated in the
cookbook.
I would make it optional and many times developers or reporters do close
the issue.
In my opinion, verifying issues should be a lower priority
than most of our P5 defects. If a person feels strongly about an issue
he reported (or cc'd himself on), he will check it when it is marked as
resolved. If no-one feels strongly about an issue any longer (e.g.
original reporter left the scene and no-one else was cc'd), then what is
the problem with accepting the developer's opinion that it was fixed?
Yes, that is what happens in practice and the Resolved state represents
exactly that. The issue is "Fixed" "Resolved" and it may stay as that or
changed to a different state like "Closed".
There is a difference between an idealistic workflow and a realistic
one. The problem is that idealistic workflows often depend on ideal
amounts of resource, and are often unnecessarily complex.
Regards,
Dave
Regards,
Luís
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
