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

Reply via email to