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’.
> 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:
> 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.