| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
|
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1
|
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On Fri, 14 May 2010 12:45:54 +0000
|
| 5 |
"Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <jmbsvicetto@g.o> wrote:
|
| 6 |
> Following Petteri's thread last month about RESOLVED LATER and given a |
| 7 |
> issue that has been reported to User Relations about the "ab"use of the |
| 8 |
> VERIFIED status in Bugzilla, I'd like to get some feedback from fellow |
| 9 |
> developers. |
| 10 |
> We have a user that has been marking resolved bugs as verified following |
| 11 |
> his actions on other bugzilla(s) and he quotes the Bugzilla Docs[1] to |
| 12 |
> explain his actions. Some developers have become upset because of the |
| 13 |
> "spam" email that action causes. |
| 14 |
> It seems to me the reason those developers got upset is that they don't |
| 15 |
> value the VERIFIED status so I wonder if anyone uses that status or if |
| 16 |
> we should just drop it. If possible and useful, would we like to |
| 17 |
> restrict the VERIFIED status change to a specific group of people? |
| 18 |
> Please share your thoughts on this so we can decide how to act on this case. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Punt VERIFIED. It's useless for documentation and for everything else I do.
|
| 21 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
| 22 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux)
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
iEYEARECAAYFAkvtc8wACgkQxPWMzpKk6kOD2wCgqr+brRXJljXR+wDk8+fOETUG
|
| 25 |
sQQAn3gJVt3rclCmXyqHfwu/D4fBgFkG
|
| 26 |
=7I70
|
| 27 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives