Hi,

just my 2 cents on this ;)

> Von: Christian Lohmaier <[email protected]>
...
> 
> No, that was only theoretical benefit.. Still the question is: Is it
> really worth it?
> How many issues are reopened at all after being set to verified?

We don't know exactly but it is a rather low number (I'd guess ~1%)

> Of those that are reopened: How many were reopened while set to
> verified, i.e. directly after integration in the new master?

Even less.

> Or were those reopened because of an other cws did revert the fix in a
> newer milestone?
> 
> Of those that are set to verified, how many actually contain enough
> info of being checked by volunteers? (as mentioned: A BIG problem on
> QA-IRC bugdays)

Less than 10%. Making a total of less than 0.1% of all verified issues that 
might be worth to be checked again in a dev snapshot.

> Given all that: Is it worth spending the time closing verified issues
> or would it more effective to spend that time of handling the
> non-fixed issues (harvest duplicates, confirm unconfirmed issues,...)?
> 
> To me that question is not solved at all.

Not really solved .. but I'd suggest to "allow" manual verification of issues 
in master builds until next micro / minor release. If an Issue gets not 
reopened until this time, it might get automatically closed.

I'd like to have the chance to verify the issues that I worked on and I do this 
from time to time (close in master). For issues where I already worked on I 
normally have enough information for verification.
I also love to see people to review the localization issues that I fixed - and 
I'm happy, if those issues are reopened, so that I can go on and improve the 
product ;). 

If nobody is going to verifiy the issues it is not really usefull to leave them 
in verified state.

André




-- 
Neu: GMX Doppel-FLAT mit Internet-Flatrate + Telefon-Flatrate
für nur 19,99 Euro/mtl.!* http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/dsl02

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to