-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Marco Matthies wrote: > Nathan L. Adams wrote: > >>Jory, I take issue with that. I am not ranting. I am proposing a way to >>*improve* QA. > > > Some thoughts from a humble user: > > Any improvement must neither excessively waste developer nor user time, > it is the most scarce resource. To optimize this, the common case must > be made fast, and the common case is that the bug has been truly fixed > when it has been closed. > > The person reporting the bug can reopen the bug, as he/she is in a > perfect position to test the fix. You can't have the people (developers) > who are already the busiest spend significant time recreating bugs and > testing the fix, just to find out that, yes indeed, it has been fixed. > > Sincerely, > Marco
I don't think any of the devs would suggest that *any* fix should be accepted without first testing it (under the current process). If you don't believe me, submit it an ebuild and keyword it as stable on a platform that you have not tested it on. The change I'm suggesting is having either the reporter or the Team Lead verify that the 'fix' actually works. Also, in the case were the 'fix' doesn't actually fix the bug, you waste alot more development time by letting it slip through and having to 'fix' it again later. So you can justify the time cost now, with time saved later. But then again, developer time *is* a very scarce resource. That's why I fielded the idea that the verification process only be required on things like Portage. Good development takes time. Nathan -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFC0Cvw2QTTR4CNEQARAg7MAJ912/60YTVVPBm3AQGFy4gMweYSsgCfTfym 3sQwbgylKR1GD6LllzKQDl4= =E0DJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- [email protected] mailing list
