| 1 |
On Friday 08 July 2005 11:46 pm, Nathan L. Adams wrote: |
| 2 |
> Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> >>>This brings up a point that really irks me. In the bug, I believe the |
| 4 |
> >>> dev implies that the reported bug has merit /yet he closes the bug |
| 5 |
> >>> before actually doing something about it/. And I don't mean to pick on |
| 6 |
> >>> Jeffrey; this seems to be a common habit among Gentoo devs. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > that's because we got tired of asking for more info/whatever and never |
| 9 |
> > getting anything back ... so we close the bug, get it off our 'todo' |
| 10 |
> > lists, and wait for the user to get back to us (not all do) |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > this is the biggest reason NEEDINFO was created |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Having the reporter be the verifier is a great idea (probably ideal), |
| 15 |
> but again, you could assign the verification to the Team Lead. If the |
| 16 |
> Team Lead can get the user to respond, great, otherwise they could do |
| 17 |
> the QA themselves. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
you missed the point of NEEDINFO |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
the bug is closed as NEEDINFO until the reporter gets back to us ... then it's |
| 22 |
re-opened ... in fact, the entire point is that the reporter *never responds |
| 23 |
again* so having them verify anything doesnt make any sense in this case |
| 24 |
-mike |
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives