-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Mike Frysinger wrote: >>>This brings up a point that really irks me. In the bug, I believe the dev >>>implies that the reported bug has merit /yet he closes the bug before >>>actually doing something about it/. And I don't mean to pick on Jeffrey; >>>this seems to be a common habit among Gentoo devs. > > > that's because we got tired of asking for more info/whatever and never > getting > anything back ... so we close the bug, get it off our 'todo' lists, and wait > for the user to get back to us (not all do) > > this is the biggest reason NEEDINFO was created
Having the reporter be the verifier is a great idea (probably ideal), but again, you could assign the verification to the Team Lead. If the Team Lead can get the user to respond, great, otherwise they could do the QA themselves. >>Also note that the bug is NOT "closed", only /resolved/. There /is/ a >>not insignificant technical difference, altho it /does/ seem Gentoo >>doesn't seem to actually close bugs that often. Ah, my bad. For some reason I thought it had been closed. But I know that if you looked (not too hard) you could find bugs that were closed by the person assigned to resolve it and/or that were closed before the 'fix' was marked stable. > > thats because very few (if any) think or care about the difference You could make bugzilla try to enforce the process; that would get dev's thinking and caring! Just think: The Great QA Rebellion of 2005 ;) Anyway, this stuff is important to me 1) because I do systems integration for a living and deal with this sort of stuff daily 2) good QA is an 'enterprise characteristic' if you will, and 3) good QA benefits everyone (although it annoys some developers to no end). Nathan -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCz0ij2QTTR4CNEQARAitWAKCXfs0tTNRo3eOPvuZ+VJYUG13GKACgkalh 7eRv7Aj61BNfMnFSN/I76oI= =N7XG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- [email protected] mailing list
