On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Andrea Pescetti <[email protected]> wrote: > Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: >> >> Now I'm uncertain about what to do in these cases. In OpenOffice.org >> times, the developer who fixed the issue didn't resolve it as fixed. >> Someone else had to do the QA in order to confirm the fix and change the >> issue status. > > > Wasn't the cycle something like the following? > - Developer thinks the bug is fixed and marks issue as RESOLVED FIXED. > - QA engineer sets to VERIFIED, then to CLOSED. > > The workflow you describe seems overly complex, but indeed you may well be > right: it wouldn't be the only overly complex procedure in the old > OpenOffice.org... >
The value of having a QA engineer test a bug fix is they also "test around" the fix, to make sure related areas are not broken. If we want CRT, then maybe it is a good thing if the person doing the review is not the same person who did the commit? > >> I'm not sure what the new rules are, so I will wait to resolve this as >> fixed until someone can confirm it is actually fixed. > > > So the VERIFIED and CLOSED status would be for further verification? Or > maybe for the moment when the fix can be independently verified in a > developer snapshot? Leaving a resolved issue as STARTED seems like a > suboptimal workflow. > > Regards, > Andrea.
