On 28/03/12 09:58, mehdi houshmand wrote: >> >> I wouldn’t bother. Lacking of a proper QA process, we don’t use the >> ‘verified’ and ‘closed’ status and consider that a bug has been handled >> once its status has been changed to ‘fixed’. >> >> Vincent >> > > > Not sure I agree with you there Vincent. Giving a bug a "closed" status > allows us to perform queries, as Glenn has, to see what patches are left > outstanding and what needs to be applied.
I don’t see what ‘closed’ brings you in this case. You can already, easily get the list of patches to be applied: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?list_id=81946;short_desc=patch;query_format=advanced;bug_status=NEW;bug_status=ASSIGNED;bug_status=REOPENED;bug_status=NEEDINFO;short_desc_type=allwordssubstr;product=Fop > It also gives creates a necessary > disparity between a [PATCH] which has "Resolved" and "Fixed" status, and > when that patch has been applied. Again, I don’t see what ‘closed’ brings you. A patch has been applied when its status has been changed to ‘resolved’. > Also, we are always going to lack the > "proper QA process" so I'm not sure that argument is valid. Who’s going to mark the issue as closed? The reporter? I don’t expect them to do that. The committer? This is an additional, unnecessary step to marking it as resolved. Really, I don’t see what we can get out of this. > Mehdi Vincent
