Comment #6 on issue 2713 by matthew....@kitware.com: Reviewer, not author,
should mark issues as resolved/reopened
A three-stage flow would work. It's a little inconvenient (and also odd)
for the author to not be able to indicate that an issue is resolved. I'd be
okay if there was a site policy to disallow authors resolving issues, but
I'm not sure it is the best way in general. As long as a reporter can
reopen an issue if they disagree with the author that it was suitably
addressed (the aforementioned "way for the reviewer to indicate whether an
issue has been properly addressed or not"), I don't have a problem with the
author being able to resolve issues.
For me, it's more important that the reporter have the *ability* to resolve
issues (e.g. if the author forgets, or if they realize something they
thought was an issue actually isn't, or even just made a mistake, etc.).
I'd be inclined to call that a separate issue, which would be a dependency
FWIW, most bug tracking tools allow reporters to close their own issues,
and "commiters" (i.e. privileged users) to close any issue (in this case,
equivalent to authors closing issues with their requests).
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at