On Jul 11, 2008, at 4:32 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: > Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: >> >> The "Open", "Pending", and "Closed" states have to do with >> attention, not the state of the bug. If someone reports a bug, >> then no dev can > > indeed, and thus frank is right when requesting that a bug should > not be set to "Closed" when it still needs attention (e.g. merge it > back from one branch into the main trunk). > > the same goes for patches: if there is a bug-report about bug-#123 > and there is also a patch that closes this bug, this does (imo) not > qualify to close the bug-report as long as the upstream author has > not included the patch yet. > >> reproduce it, I would not say that this bug is fixed. But I do >> think it is appropriate to set that bug to "Pending" asking for >> an example patch. If no one is willing to follow up on it, then >> it'll be closed in two weeks automatically. So that would be >> "Closed" but definitely not "Fixed". > > right again. > the (prelaminary) "resolution" should probably be "works for me" or > "invalid". > > i think that the correct state of bug#2004979 would be "Open" and > "Fixed" > >> It is an important distinction in managing all of the bugs. It >> is the best way I can think of for keeping track of which bug >> reports need developer attention. > > and as your bug still needs attention it should be open. > but i am repeating myself.
Anyone feel like distilling this thread into a FAQ? It would be good to have it documented so it is clear what practice we are following. .hc > > > good night, > fgmasdr > IOhannes ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- All information should be free. - the hacker ethic _______________________________________________ Pd-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
