Speaking as a RM, unless there is a clear technical advantage that saves us work in some way, I don't see the point in adding yet-another step to the process. As Don mentioned, a closed status is useful when there are two distinct groups handling the same ticket, since ti tells us that the second group signed-off. But, since we don't have that kind of workflow, I don't see any practical reason for us to use closed. Not offering the status, if that were possible, might eliminate some confusion,
On 8/9/07, Paul Benedict <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Would anyone find it valuable to remove either Resolved or Closed? Is that > even possible? I don't object to getting rid of one. What do you think Don > and Antonio? > > On 8/9/07, Jeff Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrot > > > > On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 03:32:43PM +1000, Don Brown wrote: > > > I believe the traditional purpose of the "closed" state is for a QA > > > department, so they can mark the issues they have verified to be > > > fixed. In Struts, I don't think we really do that, and while we do > > > informal code reviews (commit emails), we certainly don't require > > > formal test documents that verify the ticket resolution is correct. > > > If a release manager wants to take that role upon themselves, that's > > > great, but it should be purely optional. > > > > I've rejigged JIRA to allow Closed issues to be edited, since that's been > > confusing/annoying a few people: > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-1303 > > > > (at least they will be on the next JIRA restart) > > > > Let me know if the Struts devs prefer to keep Closed issues uneditable. > > > > > > --Jeff > > > > > Don --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
