On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 13:28:06 -0800 Christopher Lee <[email protected]> wrote:
> The reason that Fixed issues are piling up is that I fixed lots of > issues, but am following the discipline of assuming that all fixes > should be verified by someone else before they are closed. A wise approach, in my opinion too we should avoid having the same person issue a fix and do QA on it. > Based on my years running a development team in a Silicon Valley > software company, I would suggest that it's best to think of this > process in human terms, i.e. *who* does something, rather than > *what*. [...] OK, that would leave us with the following chain: New -> Accepted -> Assigned -> Fixed for QA (or Needs Review) -> Closed in which New, Accepted and Assigned (as well as possibly Fixed for QA - see below) denote an issue as open and Fixed for QA denotes it as to-verify. How does that sound to anyone? One thing which IMHO could be argued about is whether an issue marked "Fixed for QA" should still be considered open. On one hand, logic dictates that an issue which still needs some attention is anything but closed; on the other, wouldn't it make sense to have issues demanding development work easily separable from those merely requiring QA, which within limitations of the Google Code tracker appears to only be possible with "Fixed" being closed? Or maybe there is some way of reconfiguring this in the tracker instead, I haven't found it though. -- MS --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pygr-dev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pygr-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
