Joel Madero píše v Pá 01. 03. 2013 v 09:03 -0800:
I would not enforce this but I would make it optional. By
other words, I
would take inspiration from the developers side where the
random names
in assigned fields just created false feeling that the
Joel Madero schrieb:
Hm I have mixed feelings about these requirements.
Hi,
if you answer to my posting 26.02.2013 21:23 you should refer to
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA-FAQ#What_does_it_mean_if_Bugzilla_Field_QA_Contact_is_not_empty.3F
I am thinking about something very simple.
Hi,
2013/2/26 Joel Madero jmadero@gmail.com
Hm I have mixed feelings about these requirements.
Me too...
I think that what it says is this person prioritized the bug and did
initial testing. Personally if you say that any person who adds their name
to there has become indefinitely
bfo schrieb:
Adding user (by herself) to QA Contact field would indicate, that this QA
person is actively working on the bug and is responsible either for
Hi,
I added a draft with these ideas in the Wiki
Hm I have mixed feelings about these requirements. I think that what it
says is this person prioritized the bug and did initial testing.
Personally if you say that any person who adds their name to there has
become indefinitely responsible for a vast number of tasks including but
not limited to bt
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 1:56 AM, Roman Eisele qali...@eikota.de wrote:
Hi all,
recently I noticed that some of us start actually using the “QA Contact”
field, which was neglected for a long time. So I think I must have missed
something. Is there now a consensus, or a tendency towards a
Roman Eisele schrieb:
Is there now a consensus, or a tendency towards a
consensus, that we actually should use the “QA Contact” field?
Hi,
I don't think so, and I don't see any benefit what we can have from
adding people there.
I know that Joel adds himself for some tracking needs
