1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
3 |
|
4 |
Jon Portnoy wrote: |
5 |
> On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 09:49:16AM -0400, Nathan L. Adams wrote: |
6 |
> |
7 |
>>To restate the problem: When a dev submits a fix for a bug, it should be |
8 |
>>verified and peer reviewed before the bug is marked done. |
9 |
>> |
10 |
> |
11 |
> |
12 |
> That's not a problem, that's an opinion. |
13 |
> |
14 |
> I'm not at all convinced that not having every bug resolution reviewed |
15 |
> every time is a problem, maybe you should start there :) |
16 |
> |
17 |
|
18 |
Well originally I was going for "any bug that a dev thinks has merit", |
19 |
but after reading some of the replies I'm now leaning towards "any bug |
20 |
that a dev submits a fix for". And I've also fielded the idea that it |
21 |
only be mandatory for certain critical products such as Portage. |
22 |
|
23 |
Maybe as a start, the Developer's Guide can be revised to state that: |
24 |
|
25 |
"Ideally any bug that a fix is submitted for should be verified and peer |
26 |
reviewed. It should be verified by the reporter or another user. If the |
27 |
reporter or another user are unable or unwilling to verify the fix, the |
28 |
Team Lead should take responsibility for the verification. Ideally, all |
29 |
bug fixes should be peer reviewed by the Team Lead and/or other team |
30 |
members before the bug is marked as RESOLVED. |
31 |
|
32 |
The following products have been deemed critical, and therefor must |
33 |
follow the above process: |
34 |
|
35 |
X |
36 |
Y |
37 |
Z" |
38 |
|
39 |
Then it becomes a completely optional 'best practice' for the vast |
40 |
majority of bugs. |
41 |
|
42 |
Nathan |
43 |
|
44 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
45 |
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) |
46 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org |
47 |
|
48 |
iD8DBQFC0Tn52QTTR4CNEQARAliRAJ9CNmaI5OnHd4i1w0UKHEBq2e9XxgCgk2Hh |
49 |
4Ep0I76PAIb9ItQCmD/929E= |
50 |
=YQOy |
51 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
52 |
-- |
53 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |