-> 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.
New -> Accepted -> Assigned -> FixedNeedsReview -> Closed sounds good to me. I'm firmly on the "QA is development" side of things (see: Agile programming ;) so I would suggest leaving them open. If nothing else it means the issues will be apparent in the tracker... cheers, --titus -- C. Titus Brown, [email protected] --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
